Actor encourages Hollywood elites to act on their calls of openness and generosity towards refugees.

Rober Davi to Hollywood Elite: Invite Illegal Aliens and Refugees to the Oscars:

It’s time the walls and electronic security gates come down. There are roughly 3,600 seats to the Oscars; we should have at least 2,500 seats reserved for illegal aliens, refugees and migrants, or maybe even more. For those celebrities skipping the ceremony, each should invite at least 100 illegal aliens, refugees or migrants to come to their home to watch the Oscars with them. The Academy and the Vanity Fair people should also get the 150 criminals who have recently been deported from Los Angeles and bring them to the show as honored guests.

I find it curious that when President Obama did the same exact thing — and more — in terms of enforcing the law on illegal immigration, the Hollywood elite were silent. Why were they silent then, but are so vocal now when President Trump is doing basically the same thing? Is Hollywood racist? Why — when Christians are being slaughtered in Syria, Iraq, and other places in the Middle East — is Hollywood silent?

Of course, the people that wish death upon Christians, Jews, gay people and the West are greeted with open arms by the elite in Hollywood — so why can’t they come to our Oscar parties?

Additionally, I am now pleased to announce that Hollywood and the recording industry no longer require the protection of the Men in Blue at any of their events! We do not need a country of laws; only a country of illegal immigrants, refugees and migrants. How dare we ignore the words inscribed on the Statue of Liberty: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…”

So now, we ask you all: please come to the Oscars on February 26th at the Dolby Theater on Hollywood Boulevard. We welcome you to our homes with open arms and love in our hearts. Together, let us celebrate the Progressive left and its policies, which have helped make blue collar America Tired, Hungry, and Poor.

Even some liberals can’t take the liberal hysteria anymore

British liberal Piers Morgan who disagrees with Trump’s Executive Order on Immigration is defending Trump.  He’s also putting Rowling in her place.

Dave Rubin who considers himself liberal leaves the Left.

Gay Journalist, who dared to write an objective piece on the much-hated Milo, is ostracized by his own.  He has his eyes opened to what they’re really like and starts re-thinking his position.  (Smart move, guys.)

Time to burn our Harry Potter books?

JK Rowling’s fans, fed up with her political posting on Twitter, pledged to burn her books and never read her work again.  JK responded with class demonstrating how much she really cares for her fans:

Well, the fumes from the DVDs might be toxic and I’ve still got your money, so by all means borrow my lighter. 4:29 AM – 31 Jan 2017

JK Rowling: fantasy and arrogance at its best?  Psst, JK, your books aren’t really that awesome, could’ve used a good editor, and seriously declined in quality as the HP series progressed —  but you got lucky and now you’re rich.  How about a little gratitude and loyalty to the fans that put you where you are?

Or maybe it’s time to give her even more money by donating so she can really stand by what she says about the poor refugees?  Mike Cernovich and other Twitter users call her out on her hypocrisy.

Top Cardinal: Islam Wants to Conquer the World, and the West Is Letting It

Thank God for a voice of reason in the Catholic Church!

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/10/08/top-cardinal-islam-desires-world-conquest-west-letting-win/

“It is clear that Muslims have as their ultimate goal conquest and power over the world,” the American cardinal said. “Islam, through sharia, their law, will rule the world and permit violence against infidels, such as Christians. But we find it hard to recognise this reality and to respond by defending the Christian faith.”

Did those garden-variety feminists just get used?

Sarah Perry writes of the so-called Women’s March: “Everything The Women’s March Movement Wants You To Believe About It Is A Lie; the worldwide event had very little to do with uniting and defending women—and everything to do with promoting a progressive, radicalized agenda.”

Of course it did.  How many un-thinking women were duped?  How many people actually believed the mainstream media (i.e. fake news) spin that this was a noble cause we should all get behind?  Ladies (and Gentlemen), it’s time to stop focusing so much on the feels and turn your brains on.

The intersectional feminism of the March wasn’t immediately visible. Straight, white women were tolerated, but certainly not exalted. The organizers wanted to make sure the march “[was] led or centered around women of color, or it will be a bunch of white women marching on Washington.”  As a result, some feminists couldn’t help but feel that the real agenda of equality had been hijacked in favor of an illiberal liberalism.

This is the kind of double-speak at which the Left is so adept: where differences are celebrated, but only if they’re the right ones; where partisan mitosis continues until the only causes left to champion are those of the transgender, bisexual, Muslim illegal immigrant trying to get a late-term abortion.

***

Among those participating in the historic March were those whose lack of information on its actual agenda had profiteered the Left and its monolithic, make-no-concessions narrative. With enough pink and some language on social justice, the organizers had rightly predicted women adhering to a basic definition of “feminism”—the theory of equality of the sexes, regardless of their views on Sharia or the unborn—would clog the Metro stations with their signs.

These women have come to learn that their diverse and disordered march had been coordinated in large part by a capitalist pro-abort [Cecile Richards of PP], an Islamic misogynist [Linda Sarsour], and one very rich man [George Soros].

How do you say “troll” in Russian?

Apparently in addition to having the best hackers, the Russians have the best social media people.

hacking

Link.  This is not the first time for tweets like this.  The embassy tweeted a picture of Pepe in January and had a rather unflattering picture of Obama (well, sort of) in December.  Looks like they’ve got some top-notch memelords on staff.  (Plus they tweet cool pictures of Russia)

Feminists: Down with female objectification (unless we’re objectifying ourselves)!

More proof (as though we need it) that the women of this country are seriously confused, at least the most vocal elements are.  The early women’s rights movement may have made sense, but ceased to do so a long time ago.  Just like the leftists, feminists have no consistency in what they preach and protest about, and apparently no ability to think with anything resembling logic and reason.  If they did, the “Women’s March” on DC would have seemed ridiculous.

And the celebrities and pop culture many of these women embrace would be seen as derogatory towards women.  They simultaneously condemn and celebrate two sides of one coin.  They shout to the world, especially men, “don’t objectify us, don’t define us by our body parts” while at the same time presenting themselves as sex objects and defining themselves by their body parts (except when “tolerance” insists that they accept “trans-women” — and not very convincing cross-dressers like Stephen Crowder!).

Victoria Cobb of the Family Foundation made these observations on the so-called “Women’s March:”

The thing about vulgarity is that for most people, the novelty wears off when we grow up.  The use of these words proves nothing except possibly that we lack the creativity and class to have conversations of substance and meaning.

I fear that much the same principle applied to those that attended the misnamed “March for Women.”  Given everyone appeared to be angry for different reasons and the march itself had no centralized purpose, it left a void that vulgarity filled.  Sign after sign used words and images that should make us cringe.   Rather than symbolizing some liberation of women, it should embarrass us.  Does it represent our gender to be unable to express our specific, legitimate concerns with this administration with civility?  I get that our new President hasn’t exactly set a high bar in this arena.  I just find it odd that those that dislike him so much gladly follow him into the gutter.

Rather than organizing an anti-Trump rally, organizers tried to make it the summation of what it is to be a woman.  The only problem with that plan is that in today’s gender-confused society, it’s very hard to describe what it is that makes one a woman.  If visuals in D.C. yesterday are any explanation, womanhood comes down to the existence of a uterus and the ability to kill the next generation of girls.  This left the march with conflicting messages because on the one hand, it is the uterus that defines “womanhood,” but on the other hand, even a uterus doesn’t guarantee your exclusive stake on a women’s locker room or shower room.

An even more recent example of their inconsistency: Women who protest female objectification and decry “rape culture” singing praises for the domination of women, glorification of rape and domestic abuse of women in films like 50 Shades Darker.  Mary Ann Kreitzer and Jamie Fuller tell us why “Love is Not Grey ” and why they “Won’t be Seeing Fifty Shades Darker and No Real Feminist Would”:

Tell us again, girls, how crude and misogynistic Donald Trump is as you slobber over the sick messages of these male domination/rape films? …  Haven’t we been there in the past? I thought we’d advanced from the all-women-are-sluts-who-really-want-to-be-raped era. Guess I was wrong. On the other hand, is it possible that liberal women like those at the Women’s March agree with the message? They were certainly lewd and crude and…well… slutty at the March.

***

I won’t be going to see the new Fifty Shades of Grey movie and here’s why. We as women have spent the last 50+ years fighting to be seen as more than sex objects. We have demanded equality to men in the work place. We’ve fought to have our partners stand by our side at home and pitch in around the house. We’ve dug ourselves out from this idea that women should be the sole caretakers of our children. We want to be equal to men in all ways (well not me- we aren’t equal- women fill the gaps that men can’t and vice versa – but that’s a whole different discussion).

Why, then, are women clambering to see Fifty Shades Darker? What does that say when we promote a movie that not only objectifies women, but creates this idea that every woman fantasizes about being dominated?
***
Before you rush out to see Fifty Shades Darker this Valentine’s Day, consider this: we as a country were outraged at the idea of a presidential candidate making crass and inappropriate comments about women. We as a country (well some of us anyway) supported a march on the capital protesting rape and domestic violence on women. We as a country have fought for women to be on the same level as men in the work place, in society, and at home. Why, then, would any of us want to see a movie that does nothing more than demote women to sex objects and elevate men into a place of dominance over us?

Don’t forget ladies: if the fictional Christian Grey assaults a young woman in highly demeaning ways, that’s cool, but if Donald Trump is caught on tape more than a decade ago making a demeaning comment about women, that calls for months (years?) of outrage and condemnation.  The best way to combat “jerks like Trump?”  Definitely go see 50 Shades Darker and be vulgar and slutty in public.  Yep, that will definitely put a stop to men viewing women as worthless except as sex objects.