Posted on by

Deace, Dreher Destroy ‘Disclosure Day’ -‘Profoundly Evil’

Movie critics, by and large, hailed Steven Spielberg’s “Disclosure Day” as a return to form for the Oscar winner.

Not everyone was on the same page.

The film earned a “B” CinemaScore, a middling result for the populist director. And select conservative pundits trashed the film in no uncertain terms.

Rod Dreher, a film critic and Orthodox Christian, ravaged the film at his Substack page. He called the film both “profoundly religious” and “profoundly evil.”

“Disclosure Day proclaims a new religion, one that displaces Christianity (at least). It’s hard to believe that this is an accident. To be charitable, we could assume that Spielberg, no longer able to believe in the God of the Bible, and of his Hebrew ancestors, has transferred his hopes to aliens. That is the gospel he preaches in this film.

…you will never see so blatant an instantiation of the kind of propaganda that I believe will become more and more present as the world moves forward towards whatever climax is coming.”

Ouch.

The Blaze’s Steve Deace offered a similar smackdown from a religious perspective. He dubbed the film a “direct assault on Christianity.”‘

This is a rather blatant attempt to evangelize into a new religion. In many respects, the transition Steven Spielberg makes from his 1970s classic Close Encounters of the Third Kind, to now Disclosure Day, is very similar to what you see from a lot of the prominent UFO/alien obsession proxies like Dr. Steven Greer. At first they start off in wonderment about what else is really out there in the cosmos and whether we’re alone in the universe (or Close Encounters), but they always eventually end up at the aliens are really our saviors to show fallible human beings the way to salvation (or Disclosure Day).

Deace also called out the film’s inclusion of Christianity in a specific fashion.

At the convent we see several of the nuns desperately clinging to their Rosaries looking for guidance, while the Mother Superior lets out a wry smile in approval of the coming syncretism. No other religion is even depicted, let alone shown to have to grasp with the significance of all this. Why is that? All the potential answers to this question are bad. Though I’d love that to be the case, Christianity is not the only global religion on this planet. 

“Disclosure Day” earned a respectable $43 million in its debut frame, which is solid for an original story but hardly worth Spielberg’s track record. Will the film’s spiritual message hurt its word of mouth? Or will audiences take the story at face value and ignore what Dreher and Deace call out?

Source

Posted on by

How’ ‘On the Road’ Proved All the Naysayers Wrong

Walter Salles’ “On the Road” (2012) is one the great films based on a novel that was deemed difficult to adapt for film.

That’s evidenced by numerous abandoned attempts, and the novel was noted for decades as being “unfilmable.”

Jack Kerouac’s 1957 novel, a time capsule of a changing generation and diary of a young man finding himself in a landscape rich with discovery and self-destruction, has inspired so many subsequent works in all art forms.

It was only a matter of time before someone finally found the proper way to present it as a motion picture.

In Salles’ faithful and lively adaptation, Sam Riley is Sal Paradise (the Kerouac stand-in), whose friendship with Dean Moriarity (Garrett Hedlund, playing a version of writer Neil Cassidy) spans from 1947 to 1950. Their road trips are sometimes about the joy of shared company, with the likes of everyone from Carlo Marx (Tom Sturridge channeling Alan Ginsberg) to no less than William S. Burroughs (Viggo Mortensen).

Sometimes their misadventures are defined by sex and drugs, while others are about who you’re sitting next to and savoring the presence of a fellow artist. Dean’s on-again, off-again girlfriend Marylou (Kristen Stewart) is the wild card who keeps up with Dean’s wildest impulses, while Dean’s wife Camille (Kirsten Dunst) exudes a tolerance for Dean’s unpredictable lifestyle that is only surface level.

The editing by François Gédigier (who shaped hall-of-fame works like “Dancer in the Dark” and “Queen Margot”) is brilliant – there isn’t a dull scene here. “On the Road” always buzzes and crackles long before the scene that takes place in a jazz club.

Of the outstanding ensemble cast, Hedlund is so magnetic as Neal, that I had to keep reminding myself that he’s not a bigger star. Riley is pretty good, but it’s Hedlund’s movie. Mortensen is awesome as Burroughs and captures the author’s fuzzy, tragic madness.

Salles recreates the time of dreaming troublemakers who wanted to explore and experience life’s possibilities. It speaks to any generation that pushes against conformity.

Salles was a smart, ideal pick for this, as the art direction and tone bring us back to this time and place of youthful recklessness, guarded optimism and the shared notion of life as an ongoing adventure. “On the Road,” both the novel and film, recognize how vital these times and friendships are.

The time, according to Kerouac, when life with Dean was “my life on the road.”

Salles lingers on the loveliest moments, such as the bittersweet, beautifully played final scene. The film is flush with vignettes that feel fully realized and not rushed, capturing “the purity of the road.” The sequence where we watch as Kerouac writes “On the Road” in fittingly portrayed as a feverish writing session.

At this point, J.D. Salinger’s “The Catcher in the Rye” (1951) remains one of the few essential works of literature that have eluded a film adaptation, but I digress. What Salles does here is faithfully recreate the period, lean into character and the moment-to-moment sense of discovery (but without becoming episodic).

There is an undeniable joy to those first experiences of freedom in our youth, when we wander outside of our comfort zones and garner companionship or get in trouble.

Sometimes both.

I read Kerouac’s novel when I was in college, as a recommendation from my friend Ben Bonnet, who would also introduce me to counter-culture art and films. Ben was the Dean in my life who got me into alternative bands and insisted I listen to The Beatles’ “White” album, which is now my favorite work from The Fab Four.

My many adventures with Ben, while innocent compared to the characters in Kerouac’s novel, were full of firsts and eye-opening introductions to various art forms that shaped who I am today. After college, I remained frequently in touch with Ben, who was my friend for 30 years until his death last month.

Learning of his passing felt like a chapter of my life had come to an end.

I can still hear Ben’s voice, his laughter and now cherish every anecdote, every story, every word I remember sharing with him. In the hours of discovering he died, I immediately played our favorite tunes from The Beatles, “Norwegian Wood” and “You’ve Got to Hide Your Love Away” and rewatched “On the Road,” recognizing the friendship of Sal and Dean as a window to what my moments with Ben felt like.

Great art does this, allowing us to reflect and be grateful for those memories, which are trapped in the past and all the more valuable for their distance.

Source

Posted on by

‘Office’ Alum Shares Ugly Truth About Media Bias, Graham Platner

There’s a reason why Legacy Media types tried to make both Scott Pelley and Stephen Colbert free speech martyrs.

They’re activists for the Left, not old-school journalists. And they rallied around the recently fired personalities because they, too, provided cover for Democrats.

It’s that simple. Yet it’s a reality many on the Left ignore. That goes for fellow journalists and Hollywood celebrities alike.

Rainn Wilson is a hearty exception.

“The Office” alum doesn’t always read from the progressive hymnal. He’s a person of faith, and his public comments tend to be more nuanced and less predictable than those of his peers.

He proved it again this week. Twice.

Wilson spoke to Fox News on a variety of subjects, including whether “The Office” could launch today. The show ran from 2005-2013, a time when woke culture hadn’t arrived on the scene.

That explains why “The Office” was so cutting edge and hilarious. The show’s scribes didn’t have to walk on eggshells not to offend viewers. That made the show so much funnier.

Wilson told Fox News Digital that “The Office,” much like “Blazing Saddles,” couldn’t be made today.

“I think that it would be too hard to be as politically incorrect as the show was,” Wilson said.

Is he wrong? The show’s initial run went smoothly, with strong critical acclaim and sizable ratings. Few social media users raged against the show’s content. If they did, their numbers were small and they didn’t force any “Cancel Culture”-style campaigns to impact the series.

Wilson’s opinion isn’t looked upon kindly in the media, which has pretended that woke culture had no discernible impact on humor.

He said it anyway.

The actor also weighed in on Legacy Media bias, something news reporters continue to deny. Even Pelley, who just got axed by CBS for attacking his boss, Bari Weiss, in public, recently claimed there’s no “metric” that shows such a bias exists.

This took less than five minutes to find the following on X.

Wilson agrees.

“I think there has been a bias in the media towards what we call more liberal policies,” he said. “They’re willing to overlook the Platner Nazi tattoo, but if it was someone from the other side that had a tattoo that was questionable they would be all over MSNBC about it.”

Platner’s Nazi tattoo is a scandal, full stop. Yet late-night TV hosts have avoided the subject as much as possible. Legacy Media reporters too often obfuscate the facts to protect Platner.

And we all know why.

“It’s the hypocrisy that gets me the most … both sides have to have equal standards of behavior,” he added.

The media has done everything possible to diminish Platner’s Nazi tattoo, which remained on his body for 18 years until he covered it up in shame last year. Reporters, including Pulitzer Prize winners, also have downplayed the physical abuse allegations hurled at Platner on recent weeks.

Smells like bias to most sane Americans. And Wilson, too.

Source

Posted on by

‘Minnesota Mao’ Connects Dots Between Walz, Communist China

One of the most jaw-dropping documentaries of the last decade missed theaters entirely.

The film got snubbed by Oscar voters, too. Few, if any, mainstream critics so much as gave it a glance. That didn’t detract from its power and importance.

“The Fall of Minneapolis” examined George Floyd’s death and the cultural fallout in a way Legacy Media outlets wouldn’t touch. It featured body cam footage most Americans never saw and let the Minneapolis officers forced to watch their precinct burn finally have their say.

It’s the kind of documentary that could make you view the Floyd moment in an entirely new light. No wonder most media outlets refused to cover it.

Now, the team behind that film is back with another explosive documentary.

“Minnesota Mao,” just released for free on YouTube, explores the curious connections between Gov. Tim Walz and Communist China. We get snippets from Chairman Mao Zedong’s “Little Red Book,” his Communist manifesto, along with the governor’s most fiery critics.

The film compares Minnesota’s draconian COVID-19 lockdowns to brutal Chinese politics and shows how many of Walz’s preferred quotes come painfully close to Mao’s book snippets.

Gov. Walz announced earlier this year that he won’t be running for another term, a move likely tied to the rampant fraud in his state. He still remains a national figure, one deserving of serious scrutiny.

Legacy Media outlets won’t do the honors. Minnesota media, specifically The Star Tribune, all but serve as Walz’s protection racket.

Enter “Minnesota Mao.” The crowdfunded documentary went live on YouTube on June 4, the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre in 1989.

The film features several Walz critics, including a college professor fired for not getting the COVID vaccine and  former Minneapolis police officer Tou Thao, who served time for his involvement in Floyd’s fatal police encounter.

Source

Posted on by

Did Elvis Costello Go Woke Over ‘Oliver’s Army’ Slur?

Elvis Costello once uttered a terrible word, twice, during a drunken exchange that might have gotten him canceled today.

Perhaps permanently.

The singer-songwriter slammed American music in general and, more specifically, U.S.-based superstars Ray Charles and James Brown with the dreaded “n-word,” according to a 2010 New Yorker profile of the rock icon. As the story goes, Costello got knocked to the floor in short order, and the incident allegedly hurt his rising star status. (Costello publicly apologized for the outburst)

Ask Morgan Wallen how that feels.

More than 40 years later, Costello is still a vibrant touring act, but he recently changed the words to one of his iconic songs – “Oliver’s Army.” 

Now, the singer is swearing – literally – that he didn’t go woke in the process. Costello nixed the song from his concert lineup in 2022, but he wasn’t forthcoming as to the reason why.

RELATED: ELVIS COSTELLO SLAMS TRUMP, FALLS OUT OF TUNE

“Oliver’s Army” is back, but it’s had a minor facelift.

The old lyric: “Only takes one itchy trigger, One more widow, one less white n-word”

The new lyric: Only takes one itchy trigger, One more widow, one less pallbearer”

(NOTE: The closed captioning on the YouTube version of the song includes the word in question)

The song in question finds Costello weighing in on “The Troubles,” the ongoing Northern Ireland feud that left hundreds dead and many more injured.

The line in question, according to LouderSound.com, “is a reference to a slur used against Irish Catholics and to racist attitudes which underpinned British military campaigns across the world in centuries past, and which permeates sections of the British Army to this day.”

The musician shared his explanation for the lyric on a 2002 reissue of “Armed Forces,” the album featuring the track.

“I made my first trip to Belfast in 1978 and saw mere boys walking around in battle dress with automatic weapons. They were no longer just on the evening news. These snapshot experiences exploded into visions of mercenaries and imperial armies around the world. The song was based on the premise ‘they always get a working class boy to do the killing’.”

The slur doesn’t connect to what we typically imagine when that reprehensible term comes to mind. Still, Costello changed it anyway.

His explanation will sound to some like an excuse.

“I no longer use words that go off like alarm clocks, because indignation about that word stops people hearing what the song is about,” he explains.”That is my position. People went, ‘That’s woke.’ Well, go f*** yourself.”

The Rolling Stones faced a similar issue in recent years. The band favorite “Brown Sugar” got the heave-ho in 2021 for allegedly demeaning black women and slavery references.

Guitarist Keith Richards defended the song but didn’t fight to keep it on the band’s live playlist, apparently.

“I’m trying to figure out with the sisters quite where the beef is. Didn’t they understand this was a song about the horrors of slavery? But they’re trying to bury it. At the moment I don’t want to get into conflicts with all of this s***,” he said. “But I’m hoping that we’ll be able to resurrect the babe in her glory somewhere along the track.”

Classic rockers once trashed hotel rooms and committed other unspeakable acts. Now, they dare not offend fans both old and new.

Did Costello have a moment of woke? Or is his anger at the suggestion justified?

Source

Posted on by

‘Disclosure Day’

Steven Spielberg. Aliens. Summertime.

’nuff said, right? Wrong. Oh, so wrong.

“Disclosure Day” boasts a trippy cast, a timely premise and the potential for endless thrills. The result is a mess, suggesting that the iconic storyteller’s best days are behind him.

Boy, were those days movie magic. Now? The only illusion here is thinking this saga is worth its bloated running time.

Emily Blunt stars as Margaret Fairchild, a weather forecaster at a Kansas City news station. Her latest broadcast ends as she appears to suffer an on-air mental collapse.

The truth is so much stranger. Margaret is somehow connected to an alien entity, and she’s not alone. Josh O’Connor co-stars as Daniel, a security guard who pilfered hard drives containing proof of aliens on earth.

Ack! So much for any mystery about what we’re dealing with here.

Hot on their trail is Noah (Colin Firth stuck in an embarrassing role), the head of the company where Daniel stole the evidence. Noah wants to get those files back at all costs. The world isn’t ready to learn that we’re not alone in the universe.

Or so he insists.

“Disclosure Day” sounds so intriguing on paper, but nearly every element offers surface-level thinking. Even worse?

The dramatic stakes are all over the map, arguably the film’s biggest lapse. And then there’s Hugo (the great Colman Domingo), trying to thwart Noah’s plans. Hugo is part of an effort to tell the world all about the aliens hidden by dark, nebulous forces.

Who are these forces? Why are so many aliens visiting Earth? What is their purpose? Is there a reason for their repeated visits? If they’re so sophisticated, why are they constantly in peril once they reach our planet?

Make some of this make sense. 

“Disclosure Day” asks endless questions while offering few answers. The story quickly falls into a stale pattern of chase, escape and chase anew.

The talented cast acts its heart out to bring something of consequence to the story. That they collectively fail has more to do with Spielberg’s vision (he wrote the story) than any missed assignment.

Anyone eager for a great alien “reveal” better get ready for a letdown. The creatures look like every generic UFO image drawn over the past 50 years.

There’s zero imagination or wonder afoot. Just boiler-plate FX that might have cost as much as Spielberg’s trailer rental.

Maybe less.

Remember the moment when we first glimpse the aliens in “Close Encounters of the Third Kind?” That classic film laps “Disclosure Day” in every metric possible.

There’s not a single mash potato on screen here, either.

The new film’s finale proves laughable, a crush of actors over-emoting for An Important Message. What message? Darned if we know, beyond a “Kumbaya” sentiment embedded  in the screenplay.

The film features plenty of chase sequences, but they’re typically resolved with a silliness that can’t be shared here for spoiler reasons.

Later, the old Spielberg magic makes a cameo appearance. Our heroes are caught racing with a moving train, a sequence that’s illogical but undeniably cool. That’s the master at work, but it quickly gives way to more sappy sentiment.

That’s been his weakest impulse over the decades.

“Disclosure Day” is all about truth, trust and empathy. That’s fine, but it’s akin to Christopher Reeve making an entire film about Superman ridding the globe of nuclear weapons.

Sorry, Supe. They’ll just make more.

Plus, we’re told the world is on the brink of a global panic, but the film can’t share much of it beyond a few news soundbites.

Spielberg rearranged the pieces of his glorious past for “Disclosure Day.” The effort shows how hard it is to deliver consistently great work over the decades.

HiT or Miss: “Disclosure Day” is a Spielbergian dud, and it hurts to admit that truth.

Source

Posted on by

Jane Fonda Cosplays Free Speech Warrior on ‘Daily Show’

Jane Fonda keeps reinventing herself in her 80s.

The 88-year-old Oscar winner spent several years promoting Fire Drill Fridays, an effort to put the spotlight on Climate Change.

That didn’t exactly move the cultural needle, so she’s back with a new cause.

Free Speech.

Fonda joined Jon Stewart on Monday night’s “Daily Show” to talk up her new initiative – the Committee for the First Amendment . Actually, it’s a decades-old group that she revived to smite President Donald Trump.

The group is set to hold a free speech-themed concert with Bette Midler, Rufus Wainwright, Julia Roberts, Patti Smith and more on June 14.

Free speech should rise above partisan politics, meaning even conservatives could support Fonda’s efforts. Except she conveniently ignored sizable free speech attacks from sources including:

Fonda and, to be fair, Stewart looked the other way while free speech was under attack in recent years. 

So what changed?

RELATED: THE FREE SPEECH FIGHT KIMMEL AND CO. IGNORE

Liberals started to suffer from perceived free speech threats, real or imagined. Stephen Colbert didn’t lose his show because of a Trumpian temper tantrum. CBS pulled the plug after admitting “The Late Show” cost the network $40 million a year.

That’s a figure no one has credibly challenged. Must be true, right?

Still, the “optics” forced progressives and the Legacy Media, but we repeat ourselves, to make Colbert a free speech martyr.

Stewart didn’t dare mention her “Hanoi Jane” past. Of course. He let her wax on about her Vietnam War activism unchallenged.

Amazing.

Then, she shoveled some Fake News for Stewart to silently approve.

“We’re being attacked. Comics first,” Fonda said, sans evidence. “Tyranny and comics don’t go well together.”

Tell that to the rodeo clown who lost his career for a silly bit mocking President Barack Obama in 2013. Fonda didn’t rally by his side.

Weird. Not really.

What about the right-leaning comics who faced Big Tech Censorship in recent years?

“Our democracy is being destroyed. Our rights are being taken away,” she prattled on, while Stewart just sat there, a “truth to power” comedian letting her share conspiracies without challenging her facts.

We expect bald partisanship from “The Daily Show.” The hypocrisy of letting Fonda stand up for free speech when neither she nor her progressive pals rallied behind it is off the charts.

Source

Posted on by

Cardi B Decries Karmelo Anthony Sentence: ‘Not Justice’

It didn’t take a jury long to decide Karmelo Anthony’s fate.

The 19-year-old was found guilty of first-degree murder Tuesday after stabbing teammate Austin Metcalf, 17, last year. It took less than three hours for the verdict to be reached.

The case grabbed national headlines for ghoulish reasons. The facts were never in doubt, beyond the worst of the worst fever swamps. Metcalf was unarmed. Anthony used a small knife to stab the teen in the heart after a disagreement.

That explains the jury’s quick pace. Singer Cardi B sees it differently.

The “WAP” singer posted a series of comments on X yesterday decrying the 35-year sentence Anthony received for the murder.

She reposted other reactions to the verdict, too, revealing family videos of Anthony before he committed murder.

Stunning.

The singer’s followers teed off on her moral depravity.

Her comments echo some of the most disturbing videos taken outside the courtroom this week.

The outrageous nature of the case produced some stunning revelations.

And, sadly, one of our elected leaders may have hit the lowest low.

Source

Posted on by

‘Social Network’ Trailer Teases Left’s War on Free Speech

Liberals use to own the First Amendment.

Think the Berkeley Free Speech Movement of the 1960s, the rise of rebel comics like Lenny Bruce and the defense of controversial art like “Piss Christ” and “The Last Tempatation of Christ.”

The Right, more often than we’d like to admit, suggested certain art shouldn’t be shared far and wide.

It’s nuanced, of course, but left-leaning Americans had the First Amendment’s back. That was never more obvious than via 1995’s “The American President,” written by Aaron Sorkin.

Consider this pivotal speech shared by President Andrew Shepherd (Michael Douglas) in the climactic debate.

America isn’t easy. America is advanced citizenship. You’ve gotta want it bad, ’cause it’s gonna put up a fight. It’s gonna say, “You want free speech? Let’s see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who’s standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.” You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms.

Would Sorkin write that same speech today? Would any left-leaning movie scribe?

Unlikely.

The Left has rallied to smite speech for at least the past decade. Progressive stars cheered when Donald Trump got booted from multiple social media platforms. Leftists stood down as Cancel Culture dominated the landscape, stifling comics’ ability to tell their punch lines on their terms.

RELATED: TEAM KIMMEL M.I.A. ON KEY FREE SPEECH FIGHT

They teamed with Twitter to suppress right-leaning views on that platform. They also harassed, attacked and silenced right-leaning souls to attempted to speak on campuses nationwide.

Adam Carolla and Dennis Prager even made a movie about that silencing movement, one that liberal critics skewered for defending speech.

Now, Sorkin is back as the writer/director of “The Social Reckoning.” The Oct. 9 release is a sequel, of sorts, to the Oscar-winning drama “The Social Network.” The new film apparently savages both Facebook and its founder, Mark Zuckerberg, for their negative impact on the culture.

There’s plenty to be said about Zuckerberg’s digital leadership and social media’s ability to tweak algorithms to gin up a desired result.

Anger. Misinformation. Joy. Fear. Addiction. That’s a worthy subject for any film.

That isn’t the prime target here, though. The film’s October release date is your first clue. The film drops roughly a month before the midterm elections.

Sorkin, a far-Left storyteller, has something he wants to share before ballots are cast.

The film also will touch on, to say the very least, the Jan. 6 riot. That event has been weaponized by the Left and Legacy Media outlets (but we repeat ourselves) to a frightening degree. It’s a combination of Fake News, bias by omission and partisan talking points.

Now, the fracas will get a big-screen closeup. Anyone expecting Sorkin to depict the riot fairly doesn’t know Sorkin or Hollywood in toto.

What’s most interesting about the film’s first trailer? No Jan. 6 footage. Not yet, at least. But it’s coming via subsequent trailers.

Bank on it.

The film’s first trailer even suggests Zuckerberg is a villain for using the First Amendment as his defense. Imagine that. Segments feel like actual talking points from an MS NOW anchor.

“The firehouse of bad information you’re injecting into the air supply is becoming jet-powered,” a character played by comedian Bill Burr rages at Zuckerberg (Jeremy Strong, taking over for Jesse Eisenberg).

Like the Russian Collusion Hoax? The Very Fine People Hoax? The Suckers and Losers Hoax? The Hunter Biden Laptop Isn’t Real Hoax?

The trailer lets the Zuckerberg character respond.

“I’m a free speech absolutist,” Zuckerberg answers in his best boo-hiss tone. “I’m not the one who’s lying, and I’m not stopping them from seeing someone who is.”

Will audiences care about a Facebook investigation that generated mostly yawns? What about Jan. 6, already in history’s rearview mirror?

Does it matter?

The film will get endless media coverage and possible awards consideration for aligning with the progressive playbook on speech and social media.

Free speech can be tricky and, sometimes, potentially dangerous. Sorkin and his ilk want to blame Jan. 6 and, more broadly, the rise fo President Donald Trump on the First Amendment.

Will “The Social Reckoning” crystalize that effort on the Left, and potentially sway some hearts and minds? Or, more charitably, will it highlight the darker elements of social media, something both sides of the aisle must care about?

We’ll see starting Oct. 9.

Source

Posted on by

Jimmy Kimmel’s Cruel Attack on Spencer Pratt, Explained

Spencer Pratt’s slide from second place to also-ran in the L.A. Mayoral race stinks to high heaven.

Is it illegal? Unethical? We don’t know, and we may never know.

Either way, watching alleged third-place finisher Nithya Raman rise from the electoral ashes should make everyone squeamish.

Remember mere days ago when a teary-eyed Raman all but conceded in the race?

Jimmy Failla of “Fox Across America” does, reminding listeners of yet another reason to question the slow-moving election results.

Either way, Pratt doesn’t deserve anyone’s disdain. He waged a smart, tough campaign, one that called out his opponents for their terrible track records. He used his personal tragedy to bolster his message, shrewdly using A.I. viral videos and, along the way, share why L.A. needs new leadership.

It’s hard not to respect his hard work, hustle and pain. Some campaigns invite blowback. Heck, they all but beg for it.

Pratt’s campaign was … different. Tell that to Jimmy Kimmel.

The far-Left host of “Jimmy Kimmel Live!’ trashed Team Pratt repeatedly from his broadcast podium. We expected nothing less, since he’s now a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party.

It’s freedom of speech, man, and if Kimmel wants to let current L.A. Mayor Karen Bass slide on her ineffective leadership, that’s his choice.

We all know it’s a poor one.

Still, what Kimmel did this week felt different. Worse. Far worse.

Kimmel didn’t wonder why the city’s super-slow counting methods apparently reversed the Pratt/Raman electoral odds. He couldn’t question how Raman’s lethargic campaign suddenly caught fire, surpassing vote totals for both Pratt and Bass.

Nope. Instead, he danced on Pratt’s electoral grave. Literally.

First, he invoked President Donald Trump. Of course.

“…the MAGA crowd is now using this to try to claim the election was rigged.”

What sane person doesn’t suspect foul play? Does Kimmel really believe Raman suddenly came out of nowhere to beat Pratt the way she did?

Doesn’t he sense foul play, too, even if he preferred the outcome?

Next, he remembered that Pratt vowed to leave the city that allowed his house to burn down should he lose the race. So Kimmel kicked him on his way out the door.

“And Spencer, if you’re watching, we are so, so sorry to see you go. We’re going to miss the hell out of you. You’re a man of your word, and you gotta go.”

“I know things might be tight right now, especially with the out-of-state donation money running out. Moving is expensive, so to help you out we rented you a U-Haul,” Kimmel joked. “Our staff spent the whole day decorating for you, and everybody will notice you and wave goodbye as you leave.”

…Mazel Tov and goodbye, Spencer Pratt!”

We don’t expect laughter or comedy from Kimmel any more. He’s a propagandist, and a dishonest one at that. This felt just mean and vindictive, a terrible look for any public personality.

Pratt, never one to stay silent, had the last word.

Pratt can hold his head high after his short, but hard-fought campaign. Can Kimmel say the same?

Source