Hollywood Would Rather be Pro-War Than Appear Anti-Black

edPresident Obama may be meeting with a lot of resistance as he pushes for military action against Syria, but it doesn’t appear that he will be facing any from the anti-war crowd among his moneyed friends in Hollywood.

Prior to our invasion of Iraq under George Bush, the anti-war movement in Hollywood was alive and well, with an all-star cast featuring West Wing TV President Martin Sheen, dictator Hugo Chavez’s close friend Sean Penn, rich anti-capitalists Ed Asner and Matt Damon, Democrat fundraiser extraordinaire Barbra Streisand, new MSNBC host Alec Baldwin, former M*A*S*H TV surgeon Mike Farrell, and naturally, angry unwashed hipster Janeane Garofalo (of course, if they were truly anti-war, they would be protesting both sides of a conflict, but they always seem to reserve their outrage for the American government).

But where are they now that Obama is possibly uncorking World War III? The Buzzfeed website posted a satirical piece last week called “14 Principled Anti-War Celebrities We Fear May Have Been Kidnapped” about the absence of entertainment industry protesters against impending war in Syria. Their list includes the usual anti-war suspects like Sheryl Crow (“The best way to solve problems is to not have enemies”), Sean Penn (“I think we’re past that point in human evolution where there’s such a thing as winning wars”), Susan Sarandon (“Let us hate war in all its forms, whether the weapon used is a missile or an airplane”) and George Clooney (“You can’t beat your enemy anymore through wars; instead you create an entire generation of people revenge-seeking”). “The only explanation for their continued silence,” mocked Buzzfeed, “must be a large, organized kidnapping.”

If only. But Ed Asner, 83, best known as Mary Tyler Moore’s grumpy-but-lovable sitcom boss, and M*A*S*H’s Farrell, 74, recently gave The Hollywood Reporter some other explanations for the absence.

Like the rest of the radical left, both actor/activists are disappointed in Obama, but only because he hasn’t proven to be radical enough. “I voted for him,” said Asner, “but I’m not proud. He… has proved himself to be a corporatist, and as long as he’s a corporatist, he’s not my president.” Farrell: “I’m frankly deeply disappointed in the president’s foreign policy, war-making, his reliance on military rather than diplomatic responses, his use of drones, continued allowance of the Guantanamo prison. He’s a disappointment to me and other people I know.”

Farrell is even labeling the Nobel Peace Prize winner a future war criminal. “What he is talking about in Syria is a potential war crime,” Farrell said. “It will be illegal, and if citizens are killed it certainly could be considered a war crime.”

But he doubts that the same Hollywood folk who spoke out against war in 2003 will get all that worked up about Syria. “We’re talking about the difference between an invasion in Iraq and a limited action in response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria.” Farrell apparently is naïve enough to believe that a “limited” military strike on Syria won’t have far from limited consequences.

Asner says the Hollywood anti-war opposition is there but simply isn’t organized, which he blames on timing. The left had plenty of advance notice to gear up in 2003, he says, but today, “It will be a done deal before Hollywood is mobilized. This country will either bomb the hell out of Syria or not before Hollywood gets off its ass.”

Timing isn’t a convincing explanation. Celebrities don’t have to be organized to speak out, and even when they are, the logistics aren’t that complicated. Hollywood wasted no time at all organizing its “Demand a Plan” anti-gun campaign in the wake of the Newtown, Connecticut massacre, including creating a video for it that featured dozens of achingly earnest celebs. Asner and Farrell are speaking out on their own – what’s stopping other celebrities? Where is the “Demand a Plan to End War” video?

As if sensing that that explanation wasn’t sufficient, Asner also placed blame on complacency brought on by activists’ failure to prevent war in Iraq. “We had a million people in the streets, for Christ’s sake, protesting Iraq, which was about as illegal as you could find,” says Asner. “Did it matter? Is George Bush being tried in the high courts of justice? We’ve been so God-damned stung in this country by false wars, repeatedly, that, how can you believe in any just war with the history we have had?”

So naturally, it’s Bush’s fault. His “false wars” have crushed the idealism of Hollywood activists and turned them into lethargic cynics who simply can’t muster the outrage or will to protest Obama. “A lot of people have lost hope – with the betrayals, the NSA spying,” Asner opined. “People aren’t getting active because ‘Who gives a shit?’ is essentially the bottom line.” This is a ridiculous rationalization.

One explanation Asner’s omitting? The fact that Hollywood leftists likely can’t bear the prospect of appearing to have been wrong about their “Hope and Change” Messiah, even though not even they are immune to the bite of his economic policies.

But Asner finally hits the nail on the head when he proposes a third reason Hollywood isn’t speaking out against war in Syria: “A lot of people don’t want to feel anti-black by being opposed to Obama.”

And there you have it. The party of perpetual racism fears nothing – not even global war – more than appearing to be the thing they most often accuse others of: racist. Since Obama’s first days as President, the left’s high-capacity assault weapon against the right has been the charge that anyone who criticizes the policies of a (half-)black President is de facto racist. Now the hypocritical Hollywood leftist community won’t stand up to his plan to support al Qaeda-backed rebels in Syria, a plan that could rope America into a world war, because doing so would leave them vulnerable to that same charge.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

  • Well Done

    I’d just like to make a brief comment to the effect that both Asner and Farrel are aszwholes. OK? Aszwholes. None of what they say makes any sense! “corporatist”? Ed? I beg your freakin’ pardon? When did you get a lobotomy? Mikey! “reliance on military rather than diplomatic responses”? Have you ever been faced by a bunch of spiteful, hate-filled bastards who intend to dismantle you? Huh? You complete douche! Shut up!

    • http://www.clarespark.com/ Clare Spark

      “Corporatist” to these guys signifies “capitalism-imperialism”. Ironic given that they are part of the Hollywood system. Perhaps the anti-“corporatists” are standing up for lucre-free “socialism.” See http://clarespark.com/2009/08/09/what-is-a-corporatist-liberal-and-why-should-they-frighten-us/. “What is a corporatist liberal and why should they frighten us?”

      • Roywil

        Is there anything funnier than billionaire anti-capitalists?

  • Gina101

    These phonies didn’t hate the war in Iraq because they’re antiwar. They hated the war in Iraq because they hated Bush.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      They hate anything that supports or strengthens US sovereignty or hegemony anywhere in the world. They’re delusional internationalists that think our power is tragic.

      With 0’Bama they’ve simply added a potent tool to their mendacious arsenal. And they failed to notice that he’s a jihadi socialist, not just a red diaper baby. His emphasis seems to be on jihad rather than socialism. We don’t know which would be the main focus in his ideal endgame plans.

      • mplo

        Obama is not a Socialist, a Marxist, or anything even resembling a Leftist, as his track record indicates. His vote for the FISA Bill, his sharp escalation of our war on Afghanistan, and the fact that he allowed BP to run amok in the Gulf and make already-longstanding bad situations in the Gulf worse, not to mention allowing abortion rights to be taken off the table in order to pass the Affordable Care Act are all perfect examples of what Obama really is, and he’s no Leftist/Socialist, by any means!

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “…he’s no Leftist/Socialist, by any means!”

          He’s a typical socialist elite. He is the president of the most powerful nation on earth. He has no need to be anti-war when he can ensure that the wars serve his agenda.

          The left is only anti-war when the wars are pursuing a pro-American agenda. They’re only anti-tyranny or anti-government when they’re on the fringes. They’re for big government and all out tyranny because it’s a requirement for their ultimate goals to engineer the perfect society.

    • Mo86

      Absolutely right!

  • Hass

    Hollywood is full of I know what’s best for the world. I bet if it were the Republicans in office, they’d be making fools of themselves again just as they did when Bush was in office re Iraq. Bunch of hypocrites, the lot of them.

  • bluffcreek1967

    Well, of course! Whites would rather oppose their own racial interests and hand over their entire countries and fortunes to third-world immigrants, than to endure the label of ‘racist.’ They fear this more than anything.

    Strangely, the very racial solidarity that whites encourage among other racial groups and ethnicities, they deny to themselves – all in the name of ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity.’ Liberalism and multiculturalism has so warped the minds of white westerners, that they have become guilt-ridden and self-loathing over their entire history as if nothing they’ve done has been good for the world or benefitted mankind. In many respects, whites have become racially suicidal. I suspect a lot of non-whites (particularly muslim immigrants) think we white folks are a strange people indeed!


  • jewdog

    I don’t have an opinion on this until I see “Syria, The Movie”. It should star Ed Asner as Obama after he’s been spray painted.

  • Demetrius Minneapolis

    This is only a guess, but my feeling is they support THIS military action because they know the risk of Israel being targeted in retaliation is high. In their Jew-hating eyes, this could possibly lead to the destruction of Israel.

    • Softly Bob

      Of course. You’ve hit the nail on the head.

      • kikorikid

        Easy easy here. ONE Syrian gas attack on Isreal, and
        it does not matter if by Shia or Sunni, and the whole
        scenario changes. Unfortunately that event is likely
        because the Jihadist playbook requires it.

    • DB1954

      It’s possible. On the other hand, it may just be that Obama wants to extricate himself from the unbelievably incompetent “redline” he laid down some time ago. It’s a win-win for him: if Congress says no, he can blame them for not doing it. If Congress says yes, he can prove that he’s every bit as “hairy-chested” as those nasty old (white guys) “neo-cons” he criticized back when he was a nobody.

      • Lanna

        This government HOPES Israel is in the Crosshairs of War.

        • DB1954

          Probably so.

  • tagalog

    The Syrian proposal is the warlike scenario, that, over all others, DEMANDS a “Demand a Plan” campaign.

    I was amused when Fox News interviewed some politicos who all said that the Syrian thing is the first time they’ve ever seen a proposal for military action that has no plan.

    • Solo712

      Actually, it may be true. Insofar as I know the US has never gone to war without a plan to win it.

  • bob e

    good thing farrell had that stint on ‘mash’..otherwise he would be selling tools
    at sears, roebuck & co..eh ??

    • DB1954

      OMG, that guy is such a loser. He played a hippy in the TV MASH sitcom. Then after that closed up, he played one in real life.

  • JeffWRidge

    Someone should tell Farrell that World War One was expected to be a limited war. The majority of people thought it would be over by Christmas of the year it started and then everybody would come home. It didn’t work out that way.

    There was also talk that the Iraq war would be limited and that we would be out in relatively short order. That didn’t work out either. Wars have a way of building beyond what their planners intended.

    As the saying goes, no battle plan survives contact with the enemy. Once hostilities begin we have no way of knowing which direction the war might take, or how much it might grow.

    • Roywil

      True. In fact most wars in history were expected to be shortlived. Our boys would always be “home for Christmas.”

    • kikorikid

      I distinctly remember reading where Iran had smuggled
      Quds Force cell leaders (10-12) into America in order
      to lead Hezbullah forces already in country. Obama
      said Syria is not capable of retaliation. DUH!!!!!

  • nomoretraitors

    Hypocrites in Hollywood? Say it ain’t so!

  • http://www.richardweed.com/ lomake

    With liberals, ideology always trumps reality. Feminists in Europe have ignored the horrific Muslim immigrant rape epidemic there for years, because not appeating “racist” by opposing third-world immigration in any way is more important to them than taking any effective action to help their “sisters.” They have raised no real opposition to the rape of tens of thousands of European women by Muslims over the past 30 years. I would think that a woman’s expectation of being able to walk out her front door without being attacked by a rapist is a fairly important women’s rights issue, but the established feminist power structure doesn’t see it that way. In fact, they don’t see it at all.

    • DB1954

      Well, Euro feminists ignored and tolerated the obvious and rising Islamic culture of misogyny basically because they always hated European men and western culture which “imposed” those terrible “hierarchies of privilege,” and those intolerable “sexist deprivations” of female liberty (read: right to butcher the kid in the womb). Now that they’re triumphant, there was only one Euro feminist who saw and admitted that she was wrong as a young liberal and that her criticisms of western societies had all been wrong: that was Oriana Fellacci, now dead. Well, now the Euros have Muslims in their basements and bedrooms, but nary a feminist has a regret. The irony is that they’re going to get what they always feared most. Au revoir, Euro trash.

  • Roywil

    Well, of course. The Left has sent up the premise that declares anyone who disagrees with Obama is a racist. Now that THEY don’t agree with him, what does that make them, by their own definition?

  • Philo Vaihinger

    I voted for O twice, but only (a) to protect Social Security and Medicare and (b) because the GOP candidate was more bellicose, both times.

    Somebody keeps reminding us, though, that a lesser evil is still an evil.

    • reader

      “I voted for O twice, but only (a) to protect Social Security and Medicare”

      Isn’t it like voting for Dr. Kevorkian in order to improve your health care plan, Philo?

    • Boogie’s Daddy

      In nature animals not willing or able to fight for their lives are known as prey. It always ends the same.

      • Boogie’s Daddy

        You can expect America and her allies to be playing Whack-a-Mole for at least 12 years thanks to Barry Setoro…or whatever our presidents real name is.

    • mplo

      Btw, Philo Valhinger, I didin’t vote for Obama (let alone Mitt Romney or John McCain) in either 2008 or 2012, because I didn’t like or trust any of them. I voted my conscience and voted for Jill Stein of the Green Party for POTUS instead. To quote Socialist Eugene Deb “I’d rather vote my conscience and vote for somebody who can’t win than to vote for somebody who can win and will betray me.”

  • Emma

    Morons! This is outrageous, Obama is really playing with fire and so is Hollande. Hollywood is full of creeps, it’s nothing new

  • http://europa-antiqua-arca.blogspot.com/ para_bellum

    Just one example of many of selective outrage. The New York Times, the Guardian, and the BBC have been frothing at the mouth lately over Russia’s “anti-gay” law. Regardless of what you may have heard in left-wing Anglosphere media, this law only prohibits getting children interested in homosexual sex (pause and think about that for a moment); it doesn’t prohibit talking about sex with other adults or having sex, being gay, etc. The penalty is a fine ($30k maximum) or up to 90 days in prison. But I don’t seem to recall ever having read anything about laws in many Muslim countries which authorize execution for having homosexual sex in private … Interesting how that works, isn’t it?

  • DilloTank

    Because ‘liberals’ don’t stand on moral principle. They stand against people that dare to disagree with them.

  • johnlittle

    The Hollywood hypocrites do not understand why people fight. They have not learned that people generally fight for one of two reasons: (1) to take from another something for themselves, or (2) to keep another from taking something that belongs to themselves.

    Cordially, John Little, Sr.

  • Servo1969

    Hey, you know what you call people who care more about race than anything else? Racists.

  • Lanna

    Imagine never standing on principles against an unclear mission for our troops, or one that could cause worse wars in the Middle East. These Islamic regimes have always been dictators and yet Dennis Rodman goes to N. Korea and loves little Kim. I think the Hollywood people should have to live in these regimes and find out exactly how the people are treated and disposed of. The focus should be on Iran first. Libs in Hollywood can afford to run off their mouths when their freedom isn’t threatened, and that may be soon at the rate this government is going. Crossing the red line, and then Obama denying he didn’t say it, reminds everyone of Benghazi, the cover up, the lies, and never a resolution for the parents of the 4 murdered in Benghazi or the American people.

  • fmobler

    Hollywood meet your petard. Petard, Hollywood. It’s about time you two got to know each other.

  • johnnywood

    Who cares what a bunch of libtard Hollywood types have to say or not about anything?