Hypocrisy of Ivory Tower Hollywood Elites

On stage at the Oscars, actor, director, producer Gael GarcĂ­a Bernal said, “As a migrant worker, as a Mexican, as a Latin American, as a human being, I am against any wall that wants to separate us.” Then, the entire elite of Hollywood applauded, completely oblivious to the irony that all of them live and work behind massive walls and a shit ton of security.

The movie studios that the Hollywood elite create in have enormous barriers around them. Their expensive, multi-million dollar homes and gated communities have have a level of security most Americans could never dream of. Why do they have walls around their studios? If Joe Shmo was walking down Melrose Ave. and wanted to enter Paramount Studios to ask for a job or just look around, why can't he go in? Maybe it's true that the majority people that would like to peruse Paramount Studios would be respectful, maybe they'd be quiet while filming was in progress, and they wouldn't bother anyone.

However, we all know that there's a minority of visitors that would be a problem, and that's why Hollywood has walls. Does that make Hollywood racist or xenophobic? Or separatists? Of course not.

The majority illegal immigrants coming over the border are not criminals, but a minority of them are.
And in the same way Hollywood erects walls to protect itself from a dangerous minority, millions of Americans would like at least a small fraction of the security that the Hollywood elites enjoy. That's one of the reasons they voted for Trump, who wants safe, LEGAL immigration, not illegal immigration, a distinction Hollywood and the Left can't seem to understand.

Yet somehow, if you want more careful vetting of visitors from 7 countries that the Obama administration singled out for special screening, you are xenophobic. Roughly 90% of Muslims on planet Earth can enter the U.S. just like Europeans can. Yet, Iranian Director Asghar Farhadi skipped accepting his Oscar to protest Trump's "Travel Ban"...and the "Liberal" Hollywood elites who live and work surrounded by armed guards and high walls to keep people away from them gave up another round of applause.
Total Hypocrisy.

And so, these elites in their ivory towers look down at the rest of the nation, at their less affluent fellow Americans and tell them, "You don't need a wall, I'm secure, and that's good enough." Average American Kate Steinle, who was shot dead in the bloom of her life by an illegal alien felon who was deported 5 times didn't need a wall or more security according to the Hollywood elites. And all the other Americans who suffer the consequences of illegal immigration, whether it's crime or employment issues, are not a concern to the Hollywood elites. They have their high paying jobs and their armed guards, let the rest eat cake.

If you're a rancher on the Texas-Mexico border and want a wall because you're sick of illegal aliens looting your property and endangering your family, or if you're a minority citizen whose child is getting a lackluster education in a school system overburdened by illegal immigrants, you are of no concern to the Hollywood elite whose kids go to private school.

Blacks who have the highest unemployment rate in the U.S. are detrimentally impacted the most by an uncontrolled stream of low skilled labor. For all their bleeding heart concern for blacks and obsequious support of "Black Lives Matter", the Hollywood elites are completely out of touch
with the needs of not just average minority Americans, but all Americans.

And the host of the Oscars Jimmy Kimmel proved how out of touch the Left is when he said the following...

"...if every one of you took a minute to reach out to one person you disagree with ... and have a positive, considerate conversation — not as liberals or conservatives, but as Americans. If we would all do that, we would make America great again. We really could. It starts with us."
And then Kimmel did the exact opposite of what he said about having a positive, considerate conversation and basically called Trump a racist with a racist joke.

The prior Oscars had a racial controversy because not enough blacks won awards so, Jimmy Kimmel thanked President Donald Trump for making the Oscars appear less racist.

Calling conservatives racist is exactly NOT the way to have a positive, considerate conversation.
That kind of disgusting demagoguery is why Trump won.

- Dhruva Aliman

Indicrat Policy On Religious Tests For Immigrants And Citizens.

If a U.S. citizen said that a very important requirement of his religion was to eat a human heart once a month, would Liberals allow it? Or would Liberals say there's a limit to that particular religious freedom? What if there were 5 million adherents of this hypothetical religion living in the United States and another 10 million living in other parts of the world? And some had the desire to immigrate to America. How would Liberals wish to process them into the country?

Koran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

There are MANY kill commands in the Muslim holy book, far more than in the holy books of other major religions. Some adherents to this religion (Islam), commonly known as "Radical Islamic Terrorists", act on the commands of their religion.

In U.S. we have "Freedom of Religion", but what does that mean exactly?
We also have "Freedom of the Press" and "Freedom of Speech", but Liberals and Conservatives alike have settled on the premise that "Freedom of Speech" does not mean yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

There are LIMITS. We have limits to all our "Freedoms".

The intention of the Founding Fathers of the U.S. was for people to be able to practice their religion
peacefully, without hurting others.
But religions have physical rituals that can impact society at large. What if a ritual was so unsanitary it spread a biological contagion? Would that be permitted?
The answer, even for Liberals, is of course no.
But what about a thought contagion? What if the doctrine of a religion was so virulent that on average, one out of a thousand adherents would be seduced to act out in some physical form to comply with that virulent doctrine?
Well, there seems to be no answer from Liberals about how to deal with this type thought contagion, just denial. Ironically, a "racist" or "sexist" thought contagion is attacked relentlessly by Liberals. Also, Liberals will mock and criticize a Christian thought contagion, but will not attack a "Muslim" one.

If someone wants to practice their right to free speech by yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater, what do the authorities do? They stop him. They shut him down. They remove him from public places.
They confine him. They extricate him from places where he could do harm.

If this person belonged to a cult that commanded in their doctrine to do this, but most members did not have the proclivity to act on it, should theater employees knowingly allow members of that group into their premises without anyway of determining if one or more of those visitors intended to disrupt their establishment? And allow them in for the sake of politically correct inclusiveness?

Common Sense dictates the owner of that theater has the right to deny service to help insure the safety of all his costumers, staff and property. And that owner is backed up by legal precedent.

The Muslims that act on the kill commands of their holy book are at war with the U.S., therefore we must defend ourselves.

So, is it constitutional to ban Muslims if an unknown, hidden element of them are at war with us?

The writers of the constitution left a document that had to be interpreted with common sense by
future U.S. citizens. It is beyond human capacity to anticipate every contingency.

When the Founders wrote about "Freedom of Religion", apparently, they failed to make it abundantly clear if that applied to all religions, or only to religions that did not have a significant portion of their adherents bent on the destruction of the American way of life.
That question was left for future generations to answer just like the meaning of the "right to bare arms" has been. Some Liberals will tell you that the "right to bare arms" only applies to militias. Conservatives say it means that individuals can have arms to protect themselves and their property.

So the question is - Can we have a RELIGIOUS TEST for immigrants if there are existing religions that not only threaten national security, but have sects that have either declared war on us or engaged in war on us?


Should the limit to religious freedom be where the religion in question, either fully or in part, declares or conducts war on the rest of society?

The founders never answered that question. The Founders left it up to future generations
to answer that question.

For an INDICRAT, the answer is YES.

The Founders said we cannot favor one religion over others. They did not say, even if we are forced to have more circumspection towards a specific religion because it is so damn violent.

If you have 3 kids and one of them is out of control, so much so you have to send them to boarding school, that doesn't mean you necessarily favor your other two kids more. It just means you did what you had to do.
We did not let Germans into our country during WWII because some of them might be Nazis. "Germany" is not a religion but the comparison applies because both Nazism and Religion are, for better or worse, forms of ideology. Why do we have to treat religious ideologues differently than political ideologues when they have declared and conducted war against us?

Or to frame it a different way...
Suppose all religions were as violent and problematic as Islam is in this day and age.
Then, we would be treating them all with the same level of circumspection. There would be no accusations that we were "favoring" one, or some religions over others.
This distinction illustrates that it is not our intention or purpose to treat Muslims a certain way that is different than the way we treat Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Jews, Sikhs, etc. 
The fact is, we are forced, by some Muslims, to treat them differently with no prior intent of favoritism.

Once we accept the notion that it is okay to apply reasonable discretion and judgement
on a problematic religious faction because they forced us (in the same way that prosecutors use their discretion whether to prosecute a criminal case), then we can tackle this problem in logical and humane way that just makes sense.

~ by Dhruva Aliman

Captain Kirk Meets Ashley Judd - F*#%-ing Hilarious!

The Enterprise has a very strange encounter in the far left reaches of outer space. Star Trek will never be the same after Ashley Judd's Nasty Women's March Speech is transmitted into the Galaxy.
Trump said in his Inaugural speech "When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice" and “Whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots.” And he made history as the first Republican Nominee to support gay rights in a Republican Convention speech saying, “Only weeks ago, in Orlando, Fla., 49 wonderful Americans were savagely murdered by an Islamic terrorist,” Trump said. “This time, the terrorist targeted the LGBTQ community. No good, and we’re going to stop it. As your president, I will do everything in my power to protect our LGBTQ citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology. Believe me.”
The audience at the Quicken Loans Arena applauded and in response, Trump ad-libbed: “And I have to say, as a Republican, it is so nice to hear you cheering for what I just said. Thank you.”

However,  unhinged "liberal" demagogues like Ashely Judd, with Trump Derangement Syndrome, only want to hate. They will never acknowledge anything good that Trump says or does because they live in an alternate universe where Trump and Republicans can only be evil.

Best Compilation- People Who Laughed at TRUMP...and said he would never be President

Celebrities, Pundits, and Politicians made their predictions and had their laughs like George Clooney, Tom Hanks, Bernie Sanders, Seth Meyers, Joy Behar (The View), Bob Beckel (CNN), Julia Roberts, Ann Coulter, Bill Maher (HBO), Stephen Colbert (The Late Show), Nancy Pelosi (congresswoman, former house speaker), Harry Reid (senator), Barack Obama, The Simpsons (TV show), Elizabeth Warren, Fareed Zakaria, George Stephanopoulos (ABC News), Mark Cuban (Billionaire), Chris Matthews (Hardball MSNBC), John Oliver (The Daily Show Comedy Central), Keith Ellison (Congressman), Ron Reagan....and More!

Indicrat's First Meme- If White Republicans Are So Racist...Why Are They Trying To Save Every Black Baby From Abortion?