Tim Allen: Liberals Have a ‘Very Small Window of Sense of Humor’

tim-allen-networth

In a recent interview with IndieWire, film and television star Tim Allen reacted to the astounding success of his current TV sitcom “Last Man Standing.”

During the interview, the actor provided some insight into his approach to comedy writing and delivery, particularly his use of humor directed at left-of-center ideology.

“I think it’s funny to make fun of people that are full of themselves. Liberals have a very small window of sense of humor about themselves, so I love poking at it,” Allen said.

Allen brought up a current practice in which many liberals routinely engage; that is, the avoidance of rational debate via the mallet of identity politics.

“[R]ight now liberals, particularly progressives, hide behind large concepts,” Allen noted. “If you don’t agree with them, if you don’t agree with that position, then you hate women, and you hate gay people, and you hate pro-choice people…”

Revealing a bit about the motivation behind his style of humor, Allen said, “I like p***ing people off,” adding that “…there’s nothing, especially in this area, that p***es people off more than a very funny conservative.”

“A smart, funny conservative that takes shots and is certainly self-effacing. The left-wing point of view is so pervasive that they don’t even realize it’s a point of view,” Allen said.

Allen’s show is in its seventh season, having enjoyed six successful seasons, until ABC inexplicably canceled it and Fox brought it back. The Fox network picked up “Last Man Standing” and has been running away with it in the ratings. The actor has rightly questioned whether ABC chose to get rid of the successful sitcom because of Allen’s personal political positions, an explanation that is certainly within the realm of possibility.

“When we knew Tim was up for doing it, we jumped at the chance,” Fox Entertainment President Michael Thorn said. “He’s obviously a huge TV star, and we felt the show could resonate for our audience.”

Helping with the decision was the huge ratings success of the reboot “Roseanne.” It was certainly not lost on the Fox executives that both shows were family-oriented comedies, with lead characters that possess conservative political views.

Ironically, “Roseanne” was also canceled by ABC. And ABC Entertainment President Channing Dungey, who terminated sitcom star Roseanne Barr, is now on her way out amid ABC corporate parent Disney’s pending acquisition of 21st Century Fox and the planned reorganization of Disney television.

Adding to ABC’s headaches is the fact that the replacement series for “Roseanne,” “The Conners,” is tanking in the ratings. The network has committed to only one additional episode, sparking rumors that the show may be canceled. Additionally, it has been reported that two of the shows stars, John Goodman and Laurie Metcalf, have been asked to take a pay cut.

Meanwhile with “Last Man Standing” Fox is basking in the sunlight of sitcom success. The show’s Sept. 28 debut was Fox’s most-watched Friday telecast in 18 years, with a whopping 2.7 rating among adults 18-49 and 12.4 million multi-platform viewers. Fox has been at the top in the difficult Friday night lineup for six weeks, its longest streak in more than seven years.

“I certainly bumped into a number of people who had never seen the show when it was on ABC, that had found it in syndication. So I was hoping it would get maybe a little bit of boost. I did not expect that number,” Allen said.

Reportedly, Fox plans to place “WWE Smackdown” on Fridays next year, so “Last Man Standing” will likely move to a mid-week spot next season. Until then you can still catch it on Fridays at 8 p.m. on Fox.

In an age of cord cutting and streaming entertainment, Allen still sees advantages in traditional broadcasting. The actor loves the ability of traditional broadcast television to be capable of incorporating current events and issues into the programming. He refers to this attribute as “fresh television.”

“I think eventually, you come back to broadcast television,” Allen said. “This isn’t streaming. Streaming to me is processed food. You don’t know when that was made, you don’t know, there’s no expiration date on it. This stuff was made recently. You get ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, and to all of us on broadcast, we’re doing this right now. This is fresh television.”

‘SNL’ Apology Is the Real Deal

lead_720_405

This past weekend “Saturday Night Live” showed how an apology is done.

Producer Lorne Michaels, cast member Pete Davidson, and writers of the show expressed their sincere contrition for the wrong committed during the previous week’s show. In an interesting sidebar to “SNL”’s faux pas and subsequent public apology, it looks as though a new GOP figure has emerged with a future as bright as the stars.

Dan Crenshaw, a veteran of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, ran for Congress in the recent mid-term elections in a district in Houston, Texas. The former Navy SEAL wears an eye patch, because his right eye was lost as a result of an I.E.D. explosion that took place in Afghanistan while he was serving the nation.

Crenshaw was the object of vicious “SNL” ridicule, when, during the “Weekend Update” segment of the show, Davidson, displayed a picture of him with his eye patch intact and said, “You may be surprised to hear he’s a congressional candidate from Texas and not a hit man in a porno movie.”

“I’m sorry, I know he lost his eye in war, or whatever,” Davidson added with a smirk.

Three days after being mocked on “SNL,” the congressional GOP candidate won his election by a resounding 8 point margin. During his victory speech, Crenshaw acknowledged the “SNL” swipe at him, saying, “I’m from the SEAL teams. We don’t really get offended.”

The following day, in an appearance on “Fox & Friends,” the representative-elect was asked about the “SNL” skit, and he shared that it may have helped him secure a victory in the election.

“I have to imagine it probably helped. There are a lot of veterans out there who would not think their wounds would be the source of poor jokes in bad taste to a hysterically laughing audience,” Crenshaw said.

After the segment aired, Michaels, Davidson, and “SNL” received sharp criticism from folks on both sides of the political aisle. Davidson’s comments were even denounced by fellow “SNL” cast member Kenan Thompson, who in an appearance on “The View” said, “It’s never somewhere I would go, in the offense territory towards veterans, because my father is one.”

“They’re figuring out a way to right that wrong, I’m pretty sure,” Thompson added.

The “SNL” producers and writers proved Thompson correct by coming up with a way to express the show’s regret to Crenshaw in a manner that was humorous, effective, and inspiring.

Davidson once again took to the “Weekend Update” desk, this time saying, “In what I’m sure was a huge shock for people who know me, I made a poor choice last week.”

He continued, “I mean this from the bottom of my heart. It was a poor choice of words. The man is a war hero, and he deserves all the respect in the world. And if any good came of this, maybe it was that for one day, the left and the right finally came together to agree on something. That I’m a [expletive].”

Suddenly, in a surprise cameo Crenshaw appeared in a seat next to Davidson and said, “You think?”

Davidson then thanked him for coming, to which Crenshaw cracked, “Thanks for making a Republican look good.”

After Davidson offered his face-to-face apology, Crenshaw graciously accepted it. Immediately, the congressman-elect’s cell phone began ringing with the distinct sound of an Ariana Grande ringtone. The rub is that Grande happens to be Davidson’s former fiancée.

Crenshaw was then afforded the opportunity to have even more fun at Davidson’s expense. As unflattering pictures of Davidson were displayed, Crenshaw, with impeccable timing and stand-up flair, delivered the following punch lines:

“He looks like if the meth from Breaking Bad was a person.”

“He looks like a troll doll with a tapeworm.”

“Pete looks like Martin Short in The Santa Clause 3.”

“By the way, one of these people was actually good on ‘SNL.’”

Davidson acted as though he was taking the tough ribbing in stride, but the whole thing was, of course, pre-planned. However, the final portion of the segment turned out to be serious and quite compelling.

Crenshaw displayed formidable statesman-like skills as he spoke about how “Americans can forgive one another.”

“We can remember what brings us together as a country and still see the good in each other,” he noted.

He also referenced Veterans Day and encouraged the audience to express their respect and gratitude to our veterans, especially through the use of one particular phrase.

As Crenshaw explained, “When you say ‘never forget’ to a veteran, you are implying that, as an American, you are in it with them — not separated by some imaginary barrier between civilians and veterans, but connected together as grateful fellow Americans who will never forget the sacrifices made by veterans past and present.”

In a touching reference to Davidson’s loss of his own father, who was a New York firefighter and first responder on that tragic Sept. 11 day, Crenshaw said, “… never forget those we lost on 9/11, heroes like Pete’s [Davidson] father. So I’ll just say, Pete, never forget.”

“Never forget,” Davidson said, as the two shook hands.

Davidson then turned to the audience and said, “And that is from both of us!”

At that moment, if you listened with your heart you could hear the echoes of the sentiment resonate across our land: #NeverForget.

Democrats’ Policies of Past Match President Trump’s Present

Nancy_PelosiBarack_ObamaChuck_Schumer

When it comes to the issue of immigration, a lot of Democrats are singing a different tune than the one the Party sang in the past.

The current crop of Democrat leaders are advocating for open borders, throwing their support behind so-called sanctuary cities and states, seeking to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants, and believe it or not, actively engaging in voter registration of non-citizens. Some leaders are even pushing to completely abolish ICE, the very agency responsible for enforcing border security.

As a result of some of the policies that the Trump administration has implemented, especially the policies that attempt to enforce the rule of law, a sizable segment of the Hollywood community thinks, most likely erroneously, that they have found a safe opening through which they can enter the political arena. The safe opening to which I refer is what left-wing activists have labeled the “separation of families.”

In truth, President Trump put an end to the separation practice implemented by the Obama administration; however, this fact has been ignored by members of the Hollywood left, which like so many other individuals and groups, are increasingly becoming unglued.

In an interview with The Hollywood Reporter, George and Amal Clooney mused aloud about whether children of the future would ask if our country took babies away from their parents and “put them in detention centers…”

Ellen DeGeneres posted that “we can’t be a country that separates children from their parents.”

In an interview with Rolling Stone, Willie Nelson opined, “What’s going on at our southern border is outrageous…What happened to ‘Bring us your tired and weak…’”

Jim Carrey posted a cartoon painting of Attorney General Jeff Sessions in front of a chain link cage.

Jessica Chastain asked, “Are we really such monsters?”

Mark Hamill tweeted a political cartoon of children in cages.

As a tribute to her father, Anne Hathaway made a donation to Americans For Immigrant Justice for the purpose of honoring “all the fathers torn from their children…”

J.K. Rowling tweeted, “The screams reverberating around the world are coming from terrified children in cages.”

The intriguing thing is that a short time ago Democrats had an entirely different perspective on immigration. In fact, many sounded as if they were partially, and in some cases even totally, in accord with the views of the Trump administration.

Back in 1993 Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said, “The day when America could be the welfare system for Mexico is gone. We simply can’t afford it.”

That same year former senator from Nevada Harry Reid said, “…the American people think our immigration policies are a joke when we select 40,000 new immigrants a year by lottery.” Reid also stated that Americans were concerned about immigration laws because the “net costs of legal and illegal immigration to all levels of government” would be a ridiculously large, a whopping “$45 billion over the next decade.”

In 1994 Feinstein again chimed in on the immigration issue with a political ad showing illegal immigrants crossing the border. She also promised to deal with illegal immigration with more “agents, fencing, lighting, and other equipment.”

In 1995 Bill Clinton said, “It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it.” The former president also stated that the jobs illegal immigrants obtain “might otherwise be held by citizens,” and that illegal immigrants “impose burdens on our taxpayers.”

In 1998 then-congressman Chuck Schumer put out a call for New York’s Attorney General to “bar students from nations designated as terrorist sponsors.” He also insisted that students should not be “using American universities as terrorism training academies.”

President Trump recently tweeted a 2005 video in which then-senator Barack Obama said, “Those who enter the country illegally and those who employ them disrespect the rule of law and they are showing disregard for those who are following the law.” Obama added, “We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked, and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently and lawfully to become immigrants into this country.”

In 2006 then-senator Obama wrote, “When I see Mexican flags waved at pro-immigration demonstrations, I sometimes feel a flush of patriotic resentment.” That same year, Obama suggested that “better fences and better security along our borders” would “help stem some of the tide of illegal immigration in this country.”

Also in 2006, a majority of Senate Democrats voted in favor of legislation for the construction of 700 miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border.

In 2007 Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) railed against “…allowing corporate interests to drive wages down by importing more and more people into this country to do the work that Americans should be doing.”

In 2008 the Democratic platform warned, “We cannot continue to allow people to enter the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked.”

And again, in 2008, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi addressed the “challenge” of illegal immigrants, saying that “we certainly do not want any more coming in.”

In 2009 Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said that “when we use phrases like ‘undocumented workers,’ we convey a message to the American people that their government is not serious about combating illegal immigration.”

In 2013 former President Obama promised to put illegal immigrants “to the back of the line behind the folks trying to come here legally.” And in 2014 he said that an “influx of mostly low-skill workers” threatens “the wages of blue-collar Americans” and “put strains on an already overburdened safety net.”

By 2016 Democrat Party leaders had eliminated from their platform and speeches all talk of border security as they seemingly became convinced that the size of the legal and illegal immigrant population had given them enough electoral leverage to abandon working class Americans.

Most of today’s Democrats are deliberately embracing sovereignty-destroying open border policies and intentionally favoring those who are in the country illegally over their own citizen constituents, which means they have gone further left than pretty much anyone in the Party’s past could ever have imagined.

Megyn Kelly’s Legal Battle Ensnares NBC News Chair Andy Lack

lack-kelly-nbc-696x392

It looks like Megyn Kelly is playing hardball with the Peacock network.

Her television show “Megyn Kelly Today” was summarily canceled a short two days after a controversial episode of the show aired on NBC.

The episode in question contained an anecdote told by Kelly, which many found offensive and consequently set the social media ablaze.

“What is racist?” Kelly asked a panel. “You truly do get in trouble if you are a white person who puts on blackface at Halloween or a black person who puts on whiteface … That was OK when I was a kid, as long as you were dressing like a character.”

The social media backlash that ensued caused Kelly to be tried and convicted on the Internet of racism.

NBC personality Al Roker made it a point to weigh-in against the former Fox News anchor, saying, “The fact is while she [Kelly] apologized to the staff, she owes a bigger apology to folks of color around the country.”

Possibly believing that she could make things right, at the opening of the subsequent show Kelly offered an emotional apology and received a standing ovation from the in-studio audience. In addition to the public apology, she sent a contrite letter to her colleagues.

The apology and letter were essentially ignored by NBC News brass. NBC News Chairman Andy Lack slammed Kelly’s on-air comments during a town hall event that he held for news division staff.

Various sources told several media outlets that discussions about ending Kelly’s show had taken place prior to the “blackface” remarks. Some of these sources told US Weekly that NBC management had been looking for an opportune excuse to get rid of Kelly, due to her aggressive coverage of the #MeToo movement that included segments dealing with NBC scandals.

Kelly had covered Matt Lauer and Tom Brokaw’s alleged sexual misconduct, giving NBC executives, which included Lack, a motive to want her time at the network to end.

A Lauer accuser, Addie Zinone, appeared as a guest on Kelly’s show. With regard to Brokaw, Kelly was not counted among the women who had pledged to support him after Variety and the Washington Post released reports of his alleged sexual harassment of former NBC and Fox News correspondent Linda Vester. Kelly was also vocal in her call for an independent legal investigation of Lack himself, regarding the alleged spiking of Ronan Farrow’s coverage of Harvey Weinstein.

Kelly has now signaled that she will fully engage in a legal battle with NBC as she negotiates an exit from her contract. Presently, she has left Creative Artists Agency because of a potential conflict, since the agency also represents NBC News President Noah Oppenheim. She has also hired experienced entertainment business trial lawyer Bryan Freedman, one of Hollywood’s top talent-side litigators.

Freedman shrewdly requested that Farrow sit in on the NBC meeting concerning Kelly’s departure. Kelly’s attorney is undoubtedly aware of the fact that Lack’s news division has been under scrutiny for refusing to air Farrow’s reporting on Hollywood producer Weinstein’s sexual misconduct.

Kelly’s negotiating leverage regarding her exit package appears to be enhanced since Lack, who was a major player in Kelly’s firing, is now on the hot seat.

Unfortunately for the chairman and his network, Lack has had a series of problems that have amassed under his leadership, including the following:

-During Lack’s tenure, Farrow left NBC News in the midst of his investigation of Weinstein’s sexual misconduct. The journalist claimed he “was being blocked from further reporting.”

-Lack oversaw the scandal over MSNBC personality Joy Reid’s discredited claim that before she became well known, hackers had planted homophobic slurs on her blog.

-Lack was in charge when NBC News waited almost a month before it finally revealed evidence that discredited allegations made by lawyer Michael Avenatti’s client Julie Swetnick against now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

NBC News knew that a witness, who Avenatti claimed had corroborated Swetnick’s allegations, had accused him of “twisting” her words and in essence recanted her testimony. The network has not put this particular scandal behind it, since Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley has referred both Avenatti and Swetnick to the Department of Justice for criminal investigation relating to the issuing of false statements to the Committee.

-Perhaps most importantly, Lack is the executive who is responsible for negotiating Kelly’s 3-year $69 million contract.

Nancy Pelosi’s Alinsky Approach

gettyimages-979539974-1280x720

Nancy Pelosi recently delivered the following message to a group of like-minded people in New York City:

“I think that we owe the American people to be there for them, for their financial security, respecting the dignity and worth of every person in our country, and if there’s some collateral damage for some others who do not share our view, well, so be it…”

Whether she intended to provide such a window into her political soul is unknown. However, it was a profoundly significant revelation from the woman who is desperately seeking to be Speaker of the House once again.

What Pelosi did in her unwitting confession is to telegraph just how low the Democrats were willing to stoop in their craven quest for power, so low that people who merely disagree with their socialist agenda may, as her characterization indicated, become expendable.

“Collateral damage” is a term that refers to civilians who suffer serious injuries and even death as the result of military conflict. The phrase is frequently employed as a euphemism for civilian casualties of war.

Pelosi’s cavalier attitude about potential victims of her Party’s left-wing agenda reflects a worldview that is devoid of several key moral safeguards, without which a society simply collapses from within.

As disgraceful rhetoric and unprecedented conduct on the part of the Democrats mounted, the lack of a moral rubric was made manifest. For months Hillary Clinton, Maxine Waters, Eric Holder, and other prominent Party figures signaled their indifference to the welfare of persons and property as they simultaneously fanned the flames of discontent, which prompted base supporters and myriad susceptible individuals to engage in uncivil, intrusive, and outright violent behavior against political opponents.

Then came the hearings surrounding Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination and ultimate confirmation to the High Court, which turned out to be a seminal moment in time for what was to come to light, that the Democrats had devolved into societal autocrats who were determined to punish and, if “necessary,” destroy any individual or group that would fail to conform to their ideology or thwart their political plans.

What is on display is a collective capitulation to the Machiavellian maxim “the end justifies the means.” Machiavelli used this phrase to refer to the idea that a desired result ought to be reached by any means available, even morally bankrupt ones, in order to achieve what is viewed by those exercising power as a positive result.

Author Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” encapsulates the Machiavellian maxim and drags the concept to further depths. The book is fittingly dedicated to Lucifer.

While attending Wellesley, Hillary chose to write her undergraduate thesis on Alinsky and his tactics. Likewise, former President Barack Obama used “Rules for Radicals” as a textbook when he lectured on the subject of community organizing. The new so-called Democratic Socialists, that form a sizable portion of the base of the Party, are properly considered Alinskyites.

Alinsky devoted a chapter of his book to the topic at hand, titling it “Of Means and Ends.”

His rules relating to ethics reveal an intrinsically depraved philosophy.

Alinsky’s first rule is “One’s concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s personal interest in the issue.” In other words, the higher one ranks a particular issue, the less one should be concerned with whether or not the methods used to achieve it are good or evil.

“In war the end justifies almost any means” is Alinsky’s third rule, and it could easily be considered a match-up to Pelosi’s “collateral damage” phrase. Democrats have long defined their politics in military terms, where warlike strategy is employed, destruction of any and all types is deemed acceptable, and no societal construct or institution is off-limits.

Alinsky’s fourth rule, “ethical standards must be elastic to stretch in the times,” captures the essence of moral relativism. Basic logic dictates that moral standards that can be “stretched” at will cease to be actual standards.

In a twisted take-off on Fredric Neitzke’s “might makes right,” Alinsky’s seventh rule, “success or failure is a mighty determinate of ethics,” puts the outcome cart before the moral horse.

Throughout the chapter, Alinsky characterizes ethics as a hindrance to achieving political goals and is consequently expendable. As a result, any falsehood, any act of violence, any atrocity can be justified in the quest to achieve a political end.

The entire view is antithetical to the Judeo-Christian principles, which undergird Western civilization. The great theologian Thomas Aquinas wrote, “An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention,” which is, in essence, the direct opposite of what Alinsky preached.

In a land that reveres the endowments of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for each and every individual, “collateral damage” will never be acceptable…so be it.

Concerns Rise at ABC as ‘Roseanne’ Spin-off Debut Draws Near

the-conners-cast-air-date-roseanne-1533233025

Executives at ABC are reportedly feeling somewhat remorseful and perhaps a tad guilty about the removal a few months back of lead star Roseanne Barr from the hit series “Roseanne” over a controversial tweet that she had posted.

The apprehension currently taking place is due in part to the imminent first episode airing of what is essentially the “Roseanne” television show minus its lead star Barr.

Renamed “The Conners,” the sitcom keeps intact most of the same characters, settings, and storylines of the original, but the revised version has a major missing element, that being Barr herself, who in addition to being the show’s main character served as executive producer and co-writer.

Even prior to her career-changing tweet, media figures were criticizing the show because Barr’s character, like Barr herself, was an avid supporter of President Donald Trump.

It was only a few hours after news of her tweet went public that Barr was summarily dismissed. The termination occurred in May 2018, just three months following the show’s hugely successful premiere.

The UK Daily Mail recently quoted two senior ABC executives, who indicated to the newspaper that some doubts and trepidation exist regarding “The Conners” and acknowledged that terminating Barr was a rushed decision by Ben Sherwood, Disney Media Networks Co-Chairman and President of Disney-ABC Television, and Channing Dungey, President of the ABC Entertainment Group.

“We didn’t think it through properly,” one of the executives said. “What Roseanne did was wrong but we shouldn’t have rushed to fire her. It was almost a knee-jerk reaction by Ben and Channing who should have launched an investigation.”

According to the executive, an investigation “would have given them more time to listen to the public, advertisers, and cast members to determine the best decision.”

After the network announced the cancellation of Barr’s series, the mainstream media and liberals en masse praised ABC for acting quickly. However, many entertainment business professionals raised questions about why alternatives to complete termination were not offered, such as a temporary hiatus from the show.

“They could’ve suspended her from the first few episodes without pay and had her return later on in the season. I mean the season finale saw Roseanne going to the hospital for knee surgery,” an ABC executive said.

The exec noted that Barr’s fate could have been determined during the period in which her television character faced serious health complications and was struggling to survive. This would also have given Barr the opportunity to restore her career and personal reputation with select media appearances.

According to an ABC executive, on the day that her tweet made headlines Barr had “offered to publicly apologize and do the rounds of every show, but Ben and Channing weren’t having any of that and wanted her gone.”

“Roseanne kept saying on the call before she was fired, ‘What can I do? What can I do?’”

The source indicated that the writers could have written the Twitter controversy into the sitcom to allow the show and star to obtain public forgiveness.

“Fans of her show have watched her character confront prejudice and racism – we could’ve made this a storyline for her to save the show and redeem her publicly.”

Based on feedback from marketing and publicity professionals who are working on “The Conners,” ABC executives may have good reason to be apprehensive about the show’s fast-approaching debut.

The marketing and PR people for the show are apparently “horrified” since, as one of the ABC executives revealed, “No matter what promotional material is released…Roseanne’s fans come out in force stating that they won’t watch the show.”

According to the Daily Mail, top brass at ABC are also aware that posts on social media platforms align strongly against the idea of viewing a show without Barr.

“The comments on social media tend to skew in favor of Roseanne and slam ‘The Conners’ and the cast members who came back. Even dedicated fans of the Conner family feel conflicted about supporting a show that so swiftly eliminated the show’s matriarch and creator,” an ABC executive said.

Upon her exit, Barr agreed to have no creative or financial ties with the new series.

It is likely that ABC executives are experiencing regret over another hasty decision that was made by the television network, this being the one made to cancel Tim Allen’s hit comedy “Last Man Standing” after six successful seasons. Interestingly, Allen’s character, like Allen himself, is also a supporter of President Trump.

With a lateral shift to the FOX television network, “Last Man Standing” currently enjoys even better ratings than it had at ABC. In fact, the sitcom is FOX’s most-watched comedy in almost seven years.

Typically, a change in networks fails to give a television show an increase in its audience size. However, FOX’s premiere of “Last Man Standing” drew 8 million viewers, with an astounding 1.8 rating among adults 18-49.

“Standing”‘s season 7 premiere came in at much bigger numbers than the show’s season 6 premiere last fall on ABC, when it was only able to draw 5.9 million viewers and snag a 1.1 rating.

For three weeks straight now, the FOX comedy has dominated the difficult Friday prime time ratings and holds a commanding 1.4 rating for the coveted younger demographic.

Meanwhile ABC and its senior executives have had to endure abysmal ratings for the network’s entire Friday prime time lineup, which consists of soon-to-be-cancelled sitcoms “Fresh Off the Boat” (0.5 rating), “Speechless” (0.5 rating), and “Child Support” (0.4 rating).

Taylor Swift Gets Political

sub-buzz-15428-1513722794-2

For quite a while now the Internet has had a peculiar obsession with pop star Taylor Swift’s self-imposed political silence.

Liberal-minded Twitter and Facebook users have been posting comments pressuring Swift to join the ranks of myriad other celebrity activists who use their fame capital to move the political bar ever further to the left.

Up until now digital bully tactics have had little effect on the singer-songwriter. However, times have apparently changed in a big way, and Swift, who is currently on a “Reputation” concert tour, uploaded a photo to Instagram that virtually announces her candidate picks for political office in the state of Tennessee.

Swift previously nurtured an image of being above the political fray. In stark contrast, she has now chosen to take very specific positions on a number of polarizing issues in addition to her candidate endorsements.

Letting it be known that she will be voting as a Tennessee resident in the 2018 midterms, Swift announced her support for two Democrat candidates in her home state, one who is running for the U.S. Senate and another who is striving to secure a seat in House of Representatives.

Along with her endorsements, Swift let loose with an over-the-top slam of Republican Senate candidate Marsha Blackburn, who although of the female gender has the seemingly incorrect party affiliation attached to her name, at least according to leftist celebrity activists.

Swift informed her fans that Marsha Blackburn was running for the U.S. Senate in Tennessee and conveyed her emotion-laced opposition.

“As much as I have in the past and would like to continue voting for women in office, I cannot support Marsha Blackburn. Her voting record in Congress appalls and terrifies me,” Swift shared.

Accompanying her post was a black and white photo in which Swift wears a flannel shirt that makes her look like her old country music singing self.

A number of Swift’s A-list BFFs, including Blake Lively, Karlie Kloss, Katy Perry, and Chrissy Teigen, “liked” the post.

In her political Instagram post, Swift referenced her former approach to avoiding political expression.

“In the past I’ve been reluctant to publicly voice my political opinions, but due to several events in my life and in the world in the past two years, I feel very differently about that now,” Swift wrote.

Swift’s habit of abstaining from political discourse had become part of her public image. In a 2012 interview with TIME, she said that in spite of keeping herself “as educated and informed as possible,” she does not discuss political subjects.

“I don’t talk about politics because it might influence other people,” she told the publication at the time.

In November 2017, a blogger criticized Swift for her political silence and actually accused her of enabling an alt-right and white supremacist fan base.

Meghan Herning wrote a piece titled “Swiftly to the alt-right: Taylor subtly gets the lower case kkk in formation,” which was published in PopFront Magazine. Herning asserted that Swift’s single “Look What You Made Me Do” contains “dog whistles to white supremacy in the lyrics.”

Additionally, referring to the clothing worn in Swift’s related music video, Herning wrote that “Taylor lords over an army of models from a podium, akin to what Hitler had in Nazi Germany.” Herning added that “the similarities are uncanny and unsettling.”

Essentially condemning Swift for her silence, Herning wrote, “And while pop musicians are not respected world leaders, they have a huge audience and their music often reflects their values. So Taylor’s silence is not innocent, it is calculated.”

Herning received a letter from Swift’s attorneys, demanding she retract the article and threatening a lawsuit. The American Civil Liberties Union promptly came to the aid of Herning.

That same month, the left-leaning UK Guardian published an editorial titled “The Guardian view on Taylor Swift: an envoy for Trump’s values?”

The newspaper implied that, in part, because of her silence, Swift was a stealth Trump supporter.

“… a notable voice has been missing from the chorus: that of Taylor Swift, the world’s biggest pop star. Her silence is striking, highlighting the parallels between the singer and the president: their adept use of social media to foster a diehard support base … their laser focus on the bottom line; their support among the ‘alt-right,’” the editorial read.

The Guardian claimed that Swift’s songs “echo Mr. Trump’s obsession with petty score-settling in their repeated references to her celebrity feuds, or report in painstaking detail on her failed romantic relationships.”

In a Politico piece titled “The Weird Campaign to Get Taylor Swift to Denounce Donald Trump,” which summarized the pressure being mounted at the time on Swift to jump on the anti-Trump skateboard, Swift was labeled “studiously apolitical.”

Stats on the pop singer reveal that she has garnered 112 million Instagram followers, 84 million followers on Twitter, and 72 million “likes” on her Facebook page.

It is arguable that she is at the apex of the celebrity pyramid, as liberals who have pressured her to join their ranks are no doubt aware.

Her level of fame grants her greater endorsement power than many of the other celebrities who have been visible participants in left-of-center protests of late.

With all this in mind, there is now a question of whether Swift will be able to hold on to her popularity, and additionally whether she can maintain her sizable social media platform after the public becomes fully informed of her newfound politics.