|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
You would think that amidst countless disagreements between the Left and the Right, one vital area might see agreement: the welfare of children. You also would think that both sides would concur that luring children, grabbing them off the street, or snatching them at the border by those who sell them into sexual slavery, is truly abominable. Alas, you’d be wrong.
A movie, The Sound of Freedom, making the rounds in America should not be political in any way. It is, after all, about a worldwide phenomenon that is despicable beyond words. If ever evil existed in the world, it is amply displayed by those who exploit children and ruin their lives for their own gains.
Attacking the Star to Attack the Movie
Curiously, read reviews or critiques from The Washington Post, The Guardian, or numerous other media outlets. You will see that these media sources are inexplicably gleeful in picking apart the movie. The Washington Post wants to know why lead cast member Jim Caviezel visits conspiracy-focused websites. Caviezel is, of course, merely an actor. Whatever he believes and whatever web sources he visits are inconsequential to the real-life situation depicted in The Sound of Freedom.
Tom Cruise and John Travolta are well-known advocates of the Church of Scientology. Does WaPo dwell on that in reviewing their movies? Mel Gibson, Clint Eastwood, Jon Voight, and Mark Wahlberg are unabashed Conservatives. Adam Sandler, Gary Sinise, Denzel Washington, and Kurt Russell are all known to lean Right. Morgan Freeman has repeatedly made “unwoke” statements about society and race. Generally speaking, none of this filters into critiques of their movies.
The plight of millions of children worldwide cannot be underscored. Huge numbers have been extracted from their families throughout Latin and South America, but the problem exists as well on other continents. Nonetheless, The Washington Post deliberately delves into the personal backgrounds of actors in seeking to demean the importance of the movie.
Who Are These Editors?
Who among executive editors at The Washington Post can attack while ignoring the vital, documented message that this movie imparts? While some embellishment happens in all movies, this horrendous worldwide phenomenon is and should upset the sensibilities of any responsible adult on the planet. As the box office takes streams past $100,000,000, WaPo seeks to chip away at the authenticity of the story and the solid and fruitful impact that it’s having on the nation.
In London, The Guardian has employed words such as paranoid, as in a “paranoid” look at this worldwide phenomenon. Who in their editorial department chose that phrase? In good consciousness, how can they opt to diminish the impact of the movie and dismiss the magnitude of this worldwide problem?
What drives these media gatekeepers to intentionally overlook the horror of six-year-olds being whisked away into a life that is beyond Hell, where they are abused by gross men, and sometimes women, as often as five to ten times a day, for ten years or more? No words suffice to describe this monumental sin of humankind.
More children have been abducted into sexual slavery today than the total number of slaves who existed when it was legal in the United States, Great Britain, and other parts of the world.
To What do They Object?
Do the media gatekeepers object to religious overtones in the movie? Protagonist Tim Ballard states, “God’s children are not for sale.” If you don’t believe in God, you can still conclude that children should not be for sale. Yes, some characters in the film wear religious crosses. Is that grounds to demean this film?
Some media sources have called Tim Ballard a “white savior” to children of color. Who the heck cares as long as some children are being saved? Would it matter if the hero was black, brown, red, or yellow? How petty and ignorant can one be? Displaying contempt for white male heroes as the global market for the bodies and souls of innocent children expands is beyond rationality. Can such editorial gatekeepers look at themselves in the mirror and say, “I did a good job?” I seriously doubt it.
We’re here, we’re queer and we’re coming for your children.
That’s the answer you are looking for.
The vitriolic critiques of this movie have made my list of “Reasons America Will Never Be Whole Again”.
Joining such liberal ‘greatest hits’ as the pro-abortion fervor released after the Supreme Court decision, the maddening cries of “a pandemic of the unvaccinated”, with the accompanying fear mongering and science-free methodologies delivered hourly by the MSM, the complete news blackout by those self-same media of the multi-vaxxed “dying suddenly”, the Ukrainian flag-waving support of Nazis while calling conservatives the same, etc.
I could go on, but why. Remember when “reaching across the aisle” by a Republican for the sake of the country was considered a GOOD thing? It isn’t any longer, but rather a signal that the congressman may be compromised.
We’re never getting the band back together again…and that’s ok. Sad, and a sign of the times, but ok. There can be no compromise with evil.
And what’s with the Q-Anon boogey man? Those left-wing tards probably believe in the Tooth Fairy, too. “Don’t you dare make a movie which shows raping kiddies is bad!’ What sickos.
Destruction of the family unit is communist protocol. Calling out and insulting those who seek to reinforce healthy supportive families is their trained response to things like this
They’ll die alone in their own shit and then burn in hell.
That sounds very unpleasant.
But if anybody deserves it, it’s pedophiles.
When the liberal media tried to suppress “Unplanned,” it was because they passionately believe in abortive. But do the people who are trying to suppress Sound of Freedom actually believe in child sex slavery? (And can we have a look at their laptops?)
Bingo! The FBI will withhold their laptops for a few years, CIA will write a letter saying its Russian dis info and if you disagree, the armed IRS may pay you a surprise visit …oh, wait they said they won’t do that anymore. and we can trust them?
Media and progressive is a one way ratchet. reason and science ? It was never either.
These very same bunch were probably all applauding when movies like Avatar and Silence of the Lambs were released and wait and see as Sound of Freedom is ignored or loses Best Picture Oscar to some leftists propaganda film
“This exchange between Ballard and his boss highlights the fact that Ballard strongly values individual life. He recognizes that the vast majority of children victimized by sex traffickers are beyond his ability to save, but he can and will save a few—one at a time, if necessary. Throughout the film, he rejects the defeatist mind-set that many of his colleagues held: that there is no point in rescuing individual children when, in the time it takes to do so, another thousand will be victimized. Although Rocío’s life may not matter to the rest of the Department of Homeland Security, it matters to Ballard, and he will go as far as necessary to bring her home to her father and brother….
[Ballard] refrains because doing so would destroy any chance of finding Rocío or the other stolen children, thereby heroically subordinating his emotions to his REASON [emphasis added]….
It’s worth noting that, as of this writing, the film is embroiled in an especially bizarre controversy. Many critics and media outlets are calling it a “faith-based film” and/or a “vigilante story,” both of which are simply false. The film includes only three references to “God,” none of them important to the plot, nor do they come across as evangelistic. (The real-life Ballard is a Christian, and Caviezel is simply portraying him.) To describe the film as “faith-based” is to imply that Ballard’s faith enabled him to free children from slavery. Obviously, this is nonsense. He deserves praise and admiration for his use of REASON [emphasis added], his determination, and his calculated risk-taking; his religious beliefs are irrelevant to both the fictional and real-life versions of the events portrayed in the film. Sound of Freedom is also not a “vigilante story” by any stretch of the imagination; throughout the entire film, Ballard works as either a sworn law enforcement officer or as a civilian consultant to law enforcement agencies.” – Objectivist Tim White, film review at “The Objective Standard”
I’m listening to the latest Jordan Peterson podcast with Dr. Gad Saad who REASONS that human beings believe in God for rational purposes.
The real-life Ballard is a Christian. Oh God T. say it ain’t so. Maybe the film is faith based. How sad would that be for you?
What is wrong if the real life Ballard was enabled by his Christianity and reason at the same time?
Are all Objectivists as nuts as you?
You’re right except that Ballard’s Christianity definitely was important in his mission. You don’t understand Christians.
God bless Tim Ballard, Jim Caviezel and Angel Studios.
The Mexican director is really cool, too. Alejandro Monteverde. I saw him on TV talking about the movie. Newsmax or Real America’s Voice, I forget which. I get those two networks mixed up a lot because I watch both and never any fake news. I don’t watch Fox anymore either. It’s sucked ever since that dumb bitch secretary was made the fake CEO. And Monteverde is so good looking he could be a movie star.
This movie is vilified by the legacy media for various reasons.
It makes child exploiters look bad – It’s easy to draw a parallel between child traffickers and the exploitation (and brainwashing) of our children’s minds through “trans story hour”, exposing them to gay sex, anal sex, convincing them that there are dozens of genders, etc., before they reach the appropriate age.
It aims to increase awareness of the plight of children in our society – it could make many people aware of how “unprotected” our children are, including those who are yet to be born, and that it is our duty to protect them.
It makes allusions to Christianity – and we know how that makes leftists’ heads explode.
It goes against the leftist agenda of destruction of family values and of the value of life itself.
All true. And I think tranny tyranny is the main reason lefties hate this movie.
One important thing: there IS a tool out there that we can use to curb, or possibly eliminate, human trafficking of all kinds. It is called enforcing the border, and having people who want to enter the United States enter through a port of entry and presenting a passport to a CBP official. (Serious countries do similar things.). This is the worst violation of human rights to Leftists and makes them VERY UPSET. They ACHE for open borders and if they had their way not even CBP would exist…or at least it would exist to solely go after U.S. citizens. And if open borders leads to more crime, more drugs, and child sex traffcking? Leftists say “so be it”.
The Left is for their political party over human lives! Its obvious how evil has taken over their souls.
They don’t have souls.
Our society has descended to the point whereby Tim Ballard is vilified and/or ignored and Hollywood miscreants and political perverts are glorified.
Tim Ballard and the featured actors restored my faith and that of accompanying family members that there are still honorable, courageous and moral men in this world who should serve as role models and who, by every definition, are real heroes.
Our government, the majority of citizens and the media should be condemned for their failure to passionately enjoin with Tim Ballard in his quest to “save God’s children.” The Sound of Freedom was one of the most impactful movies I have ever seen.
No. Slavery was never legal within the British Isles. Some Englishmen may have exported slaves from Africa to the American colonies but no slave was ever owned in Britain.