How ironic. The same week we learn that George, his un-American wife and their two children have fled the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave for the Land of the Snail and the Home of the Censored, “Variety” publishes a puff piece on the part-time actor presenting him as more than he is, which is a bubble-dwelling Hollywood progressive laboring under the delusion that he has something useful to contribute to the public discourse. He hasn’t. Neither does “Variety”.
We are told that when George was preparing to make his Broadway debut in the stage adaptation of his film about TV news icon Edward R. Murrow in “Good Night, and Good Luck,” he invited “60 Minutes” to witness that cast’s their first read-through. Clooney ‘s angle was that there is a parallel between McCarthyism in the 1950s and the “political pressure that news organizations face in the second Trump administration.” There’s a parallel all right, but it is the Democratic Party’s adoption of McCarthy’s tactics (like guilt by association) to try to dominate American policy and politics through fear and hate. President Biden’s “Republicans are fascists” speech was pure McCarthyism. The progressive pattern of cancelling any truth-teller who informs the public of what the 21st Century Left is attempting to do to the government and the culture is McCarthyism.
“When the other three estates fail — when the judiciary and the executive and the legislative branches fail us — the fourth estate has to succeed,” Clooney tells “Variety.” I’m sure he really believes that, because George, while intellectually ambitious, just isn’t very bright: bias has made him stupid. If he was alert and capable of objective analysis, he would realize that journalism has already failed, unless one calls abandoning journalism for partisan propaganda is “success.”
In a cover story with “Variety,” Clooney faults CBS and ABC for settling when Trump sued them.“If CBS and ABC had challenged those lawsuits and said, ‘Go, fuck yourself, we wouldn’t be where we are in the country,” Clooney says.“That’s simply the truth.” Moron. ABC, with its deliberate and malicious repeated televised lie that Trump was an “adjudicated rapist,” knew it was risking a SCOUTS case that would finally overturn New York Times v. Sullivan, a case decided when journalistic good faith was still an accepted myth. CBS settled because it knew that pre-trial discovery would reveal damning emails and other documents proving that the “60 Minutes” producers were trying to swing the 2024 election by falsely editing Kamala Harris’s interview to make her seem less incompetent.
The two networks didn’t cave to Trump: they were guilty, and they knew it. This is all too sophisticated for George, who thinks the network news ethos of the Fifties still exists. In fact, it’s been extinct for decades.
“Variety” is not one to correct George’s misapprehensions.. When Clooney says, “Bari Weiss is dismantling CBS News as we speak,” the magazine describes Weiss as a “conservative commentator.” Weiss is a left-leaning journalist who has taken a bold stand for fair and objective reporting and against “advocacy journalism.”
Clooney tells the showbiz mouthpiece that he’s optimistic that “the pendulum will swing back in the direction of liberalism after America has its full of Trump.” George really thinks that progressivism 21st Century-style is liberalism, even though it’s pro-censorship, pro-socialism, pro-discrimination, and pro-illegal immigration. Someone tell George that real American liberals don’t become French citizens, who are subject to prosecution for “hate speech,” however it is defined by those in power at any period in time.
Next George reverts to current Democratic Party talking points, and either doesn’t see how cynical they are, or isn’t smart enough to do so. Arguing that the President is just a bad man and a bad President, he blathers, “Just straight up, it’s the economy stupid. It’s more expensive now than it was when Joe Biden left office.” Yeah, because it’s always “more expensive” a year later: this is called “inflation.” Prices are uncomfortably high now because Joe Biden was President, and the “affordability” gimmick is great for deceiving the dim, like Clooney.
“I think that cruelty, like separating children from their parents, although popular with small groups of people, doesn’t play well with most Americans,” he adds, parroting another fake issue. It is, however, one the media has employed to convince many Americans to feel sorry for illegal immigrants.
George Clooney was once hailed as the new Cary Grant. But Grant knew he was a lower-class British kid named Archie Leach who dared not get too impressed with himself despite his magnificent career successed. He was a versatile, intelligent actor with presence and charisma; he also was smart enough to stay out of areas beyond his expertise. Not George, however.
What a pity.
Ethics Alarms 
When Le Pen assumes power or a civil war breaks out in Europe between Muslims and the native populations that do not want to be replaced and have their culture vandalized, the Clooney family will move back to the USA (or Canada).
For what it’s worth, Clooney bought the French mansion and vineyard in 2021 (curiously, not a time when Trump was in office), and seems to have been mostly living there since (with neighbors Brad Pitt and George Lucas). He’s had an estate on lake Como for years (bought a neighboring mansion to expand), and one on his private island on the Thames in London.
Looks like jumping ship on the US isn’t exactly a sudden change in course. Maybe lots more attention if he can pin it on Trump, though. Hope he learns to enjoy the screwy French elections procedures.
“I think that cruelty, like separating children from their parents, although popular with small groups of people, doesn’t play well with most Americans,” he adds, parroting another fake issue. It is, however, one the media has employed to convince many Americans to feel sorry for illegal immigrants.”
I believe he is correct. We do not want children born in the US to illegal immigrants to be separated from their parents when those parents are deported. An infant child born to an illegal immigrant cannot be jailed or even taken away from the parents by government without cause. Thus, they are under the jurisdiction of the parents and not the US government. There is no in loco parentis at play. As such they must follow the parents when they are deported unless the US government seeks to challenge the parental control and assume guardianship of the minors. It would seem that only the child has standing to initiate a guardianship proceeding against the parents. Let the NGO’s provide the legal help for that and let them take the rap for working to separate the child from the parents.
Just as an American citizen who happens to be a minor cannot prevent his or her parents from voluntarily moving to another country and requiring the child to go with them, nothing in our laws allows a minor child born in the US to an illegal immigrant to dictate to the US government where he or she and its parents will reside.
To me this seems to me to be the plain language of the 14th amendment with respect to the clause “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. If the government cannot charge an infant with a crime or otherwise remove the child from parental custody without cause I have to wonder exactly what jurisdiction the government has over the child. Any protections afforded to children do not require the child to do anything therefore the jurisdictional control appears to fall on custodial adults or other care givers.
But he’s wrong, in the sense that the US is not forcing parents to leave their children when they are deported.
I agree. I was suggesting an opinion on why birthright citizenship does not require we assume that children born here to illegal immigrants are citizens or anchor babies to prevent separation from biological parents. Even if it is argued that being born here automatically makes you a citizen the child could have citizenship but that does not give the child the right to remain on US soil if the parents have no such right.
Why do so many Hollywood actors suffer from Dunning-Kruger effect when it comes to politics, it seems to me that their fame has gone straight to their collective heads and ballooned their egos to absurdity. I’m sure modern day Trump Derangement Syndrome has something to do with it these days.
Easy answer: they fall into the same fallacy represented by the retort, “If you’re so smart, why ain’t you rich?” These performers are rich and famous, so they assume that they must be smart.
And in Clooney is also ridiculously handsome, a condition which is most often debilitating.
Cary was better looking, though….
He was poor and from England where actors and actresses are from a guild that knows its place in their society. They’re just people who are good at and trained at acting as if they are someone else. It’s simply a way to make a living. At least that’s the way it was when Archie was coming up and I doubt he ever strayed from that. And good for him and all his fellows.
I can’t say I like the idea of separating children from their parents, but there’s a fallacy in progressive argumentation that is constantly ignored. This is the lack of comparison between undesirable results. When children are separated from parents, it isn’t because of caprice or malice (always grant the occasional exceptions), but because the alternative is worse. Why did we separate the child from his parents? Well, they were the perpetrators of a bank robbery that included homicide, so the let the child stay with is parents required either sending the child to prison with them, or letting the parents off easy for their crime, either of which is more damaging than removing the child from the parents and placing him in foster care.
In the realm of illegal immigration, the choice to separate a child from the parents is not made in isolation with some gleeful desire to see parents and children torn apart. Separation is not chosen for the sake of separation, but as the best of bad alternatives. The worst alternative, I believe, is to simply continue on with lukewarm efforts to enforce immigration laws while effectively inviting in hundreds of thousands if not millions of illegal immigrants who go underground, commit identity theft to survive, and are extremely vulnerable to human trafficking. Maybe we just need to message this better: if you don’t support rigorously enforcing immigration laws, you’re positively in favor human trafficking. You’re in favor of minors being held against their wills and forced into sexual slavery. You’re in favor of people being forced into de facto labor slavery because the employer can get away with paying peanuts for long hours and grueling conditions, with the threat of exposure to keep the enslaved in line.
I do agree with Clooney, though, that the pendulum will swing back the progressive way, and they will once again charge forward hard and fast with the progressive agenda when they get the chance. It might not be under Trump’s remaining term, and it might even wait through a Vance presidency, but it will come. My one hope at the moment is that Trump will be successful in his efforts to expand domestic energy and domestic industry and reduce regulations that the economy booms. If that happens, we might see a Vance presidency. If the economy only limps along or falters, which seems likely with current state of consumer debt ratios and the eventually AI bubble burst, then we can count on progressive governance in 2029.