Why CrowdStrike May Be the Real Reason for the Impeachment Charade

pelosi_impeachment_trump

A single telephone call kick-started the Democrat impeachment ruse.

The call involved a conversation between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. During the inter-continental back and forth, a lone reference to a company named CrowdStrike was made.

Few allies of the president have ventured to speak publicly about CrowdStrike. And in their endless indulgence in pretend journalism, the mainstream media have repeatedly tried to divert attention away from any type of substantive discussion regarding the company and the growing list of questions that seeks cover in darkness.

Media figures have used a tired gambit to diminish the importance of CrowdStrike, suggesting that any belief on the part of individuals and/or groups about the company’s possible ties to the Democratic Party or potential involvement with the losing party’s 2016 campaign gets such persons or groups labeled “conspiracy theorists.”

No theorizing is necessary to arrive at the conclusion that CrowdStrike is at the epicenter of the Russia-collusion narrative, which the Democrats and their media allies crammed down the public’s throat during the first two years of Trump’s presidency.

The story surrounding the company’s origin, connections, and purpose is incomplete to say the least. In early 2016, after the DNC server was reportedly hacked, Perkins Coie, a law firm with connections to the Democratic Party, brought in CrowdStrike to investigate the matter.

If the law firm’s name has a familiar ring, it is because the very same entity hired the infamous firm Fusion GPS on behalf of the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign; this was done in order to obtain so-called opposition research prior to the 2016 election, in an apparent effort to establish a link between the Trump campaign and Russia.

In June of 2016, CrowdStrike made the determination that agents of Russia were the ones who had hacked the DNC’s computers, and a claim was made that Russia was the source of the e-mails that were subsequently published by WikiLeaks.

The widely circulated notion that Russia interfered with the U.S. election is based, in part, on the investigation into the DNC’s servers.

However, CrowdStrike employees, as opposed to U.S. law enforcement in the form of the FBI, were the only people to actually investigate the DNC e-mail servers, which purportedly contained evidence of Russian cyber intrusion.

CrowdStrike provided findings to the FBI but did not produce and hand over to the FBI the actual hardware, i.e., the servers themselves.

An adequate explanation has never been provided as to why the FBI was not given access to the servers, although reportedly there were multiple requests to do so.

The Obama intelligence community subsequently issued the frequently cited “intelligence assessment,” which concluded that Russian hackers had infiltrated the DNC servers, based on data provided by CrowdStrike.

Jeh Johnson, former Homeland Security secretary in the Obama administration, told the House Intelligence Committee that when his department offered to help the DNC with the investigation of server intrusion, he was told that the DNC “did not feel it needed DHS’ assistance at that time.”

CrowdStrike has a multiplicity of relationships with Democrats. The president of CrowdStrike Services is an individual named Shawn Henry, who headed up the FBI’s cybercrimes division during the Obama administration.

The company’s co-founder and CTO is Dmitri Alperovitch.

Alperovitch authored the report, which determined that hackers tied to Russia were responsible for the DNC server breach. A Russian-born immigrant who has since become a U.S. citizen, Alperovitch is also a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, an anti-Russian think tank, which is backed and financed by Ukrainian billionaire Victor Pinchuk. Pinchuk is a major donor to the Clinton Foundation.

The Atlantic Council decided in 2013 to grant its Distinguished International Leadership Award to none other than Hillary Clinton. The Ukraine-Russian conflict has involved an extensive and intensive cyberwar, with each side attempting to hack the networks and infrastructure of the other. Major cybersecurity firms are involved with the government of Ukraine, including CrowdStrike.

When President Trump mentioned CrowdStrike during his phone call with the Ukrainian leader, he invoked the questionable nature of the firm’s role in the failed Russia-collusion narrative. This likely prompted some of those who were listening to create what we now see creepily unfolding before our very eyes.

What we have here is an impeachment defense.

Like in the movie “A Few Good Men,” the question is whether or not in the end the Democrats and their media allies will be able to handle the truth.

Why Democrats Should Fear a Senate Trial

lindsey-graham-kavanaugh-protester-via-benny-johnson-cropped-e1538952820625-620x435

In the next few weeks, the U.S. House of Representatives may vote to approve articles of impeachment.

The governmental activity that the public has been witnessing over the past few weeks regarding the potential impeachment of the 45th president would be transferred over to the U.S. Senate, which unlike the House of Representatives is under Republican control.

If the Democrats actually pull off a vote to impeach the president, they just may find themselves ruing the day. The politically charged impeachment drama could play out in the following manner:

Republicans in the Senate would make the case that the House articles of impeachment are the product of a highly flawed process. They would point out that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff kicked off the hearings in a shroud of secrecy. Curiously, only information favorable to the Democrats was allowed to leak out.

Senate Republicans would also note that the chairman ran a series of closed-door depositions, a.k.a. “auditions,” followed by open televised testimony sessions that posed as committee hearings.

Much of the above mentioned was in flagrant violation of constitutional norms and is easily recognizable as an assault on due process.

GOP senators would highlight that Schiff’s rabidly partisan proceedings were devoid of fairness. Ranking Republican members on the committee were blocked from calling witnesses. Ukraine interference in the 2016 election was off the table, as were former Vice President Joe Biden, the business dealings of Biden’s son, the corrupt Ukraine energy company Biden’s son worked for, and of course, the identity and origin of the so-called whistleblower.

With the above described sham circumstances in mind, the Senate could reasonably dismiss the articles of impeachment and skip the trial altogether. But interestingly, the president and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have both weighed in, indicating their preferences to have a full Senate trial.

A Senate impeachment trial would involve each side having the right to call witnesses and perform cross-examinations. The House members, known as impeachment managers during the course of the trial, would present the prosecution case. The president would have the right to mount a defense with his own attorneys. The Constitution requires a two-thirds super majority to convict and remove a sitting president.

Should a Senate trial take place, it would have some unfortunate fallout for Democratic presidential candidates in that it would pull a number of them off the campaign trail at a most inopportune time. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and Michael Bennet would be compelled to stop campaigning mere weeks before the Iowa caucuses.

McConnell recently alluded to this aspect of an impeachment trial, saying, “How long it goes on really just depends on how long the Senate wants to spend on it. I will say I’m pretty sure how it’s likely to end. If it were today, I don’t think there’s any question it would not lead to a removal. So the question is how long the Senate wants to take. How long do the presidential candidates want to be here on the floor of the Senate instead of Iowa and New Hampshire?”

When the Senate starts its impeachment preparation, not only do the proceedings occur in a forum in which the GOP holds a majority, key committees are also chaired by supporters of the president. The Senate Republicans will be able to bring forth evidence on issues and topics that the left and the mainstream media have routinely dismissed out of hand.

Democrats may already be experiencing high anxiety over the recent communications of GOP Senate leaders. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham sent a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, requesting documents related to communications between former Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko and Biden.

Graham also sought documents pertaining to a meeting between Biden’s son’s business partner and former Secretary of State John Kerry. Additionally, Graham has said he will insist that the Senate call the so-called whistleblower to testify.

It is legitimate as well as relevant for the Senate to explore, as they likely would, the former vice president’s apparent role in placing pressure on the Ukrainian government to fire a prosecutor by the name of Viktor Shokin, who had been investigating the natural gas company, Burisma. Burisma paid huge amounts of money to Biden’s son, who by all appearances was an energy neophyte, for his membership on the company’s board of directors.

The telephone conversation between President Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky, which ostensibly prompted the impeachment inquiry, involved a reference to prosecutor Shokin, making the facts concerning Burisma and Biden highly relevant to legitimate U.S. concerns over corruption in the Ukraine.

Additionally, the Senate would likely look into Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election by calling as a witness former DNC consultant Alexandra Chalupa to determine whether, with the assistance of Ukrainian officials, she was improperly engaging in opposition research on the Trump campaign.

Homeland Security Committee Chairman Sen. Ron Johnson and Finance Committee Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley have already written a letter to the head of the National Archives and Records Administration, seeking to obtain records of meetings between Obama administration officials, Ukrainian government representatives, and DNC officials.

The Johnson-Grassley letter specifically references a meeting in 2016 in which U.S. officials “brought up investigations relating to Burisma Holdings.” The letter also makes reference to officials in that meeting who asked that the Ukraine government “drop the Burisma probe and allow the FBI to take it over.”

According to the letter, White House records will indicate that Chalupa was present in “numerous meetings at the White House, including one event with then President Obama.”

Senators Johnson and Grassley have also sent a letter to Attorney General William Barr and FBI Director Christopher Wray, seeking information on Chalupa. The letter states, based on reports, that “it appears that the DOJ and FBI have in their possession material relevant to our Committees’ ongoing investigation into collusive actions Chalupa and the DNC took to use foreign government sources to undermine the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.”

Should an impeachment trial take place, President Trump has indicated that he intends to bring in to testify both Schiff and the so-called whistleblower. Findings from U.S. Attorney John Durham’s probe into election-related controversies of 2016 would also likely become available should a Senate trial occur.

A witness list that includes Schiff, Biden, Biden’s son, Burisma board member Devon Archer, Chalupa, Fusion GPS researcher Nellie Ohr, and the so-called whistleblower, among myriad others, is the stuff of Democrat nightmares.

A little something for Dems to ponder before they take that all-important vote: Be careful what you wish for.

‘Charlie’s Angels’ Takes a Box-office Tumble

mv5bmdfknza3mmmtytc1mi00zwnjlwjjmjctodq2zgi2owy0ymexxkeyxkfqcgdeqxvymda4nzmyoa4040._v1_sy1000_cr006741000_al_

When it comes to box office, Hollywood’s latest remake of an iconic TV classic recently experienced a fall from grace.

The latest “Charlie’s Angels” reboot has studio executives scratching their heads in search of an explanation as to how a popular franchise with a name director, notable cast, and $50 million production budget could fail to attract a decent-sized audience.

“Wokeness” in today’s left-tilted culture is the overarching theme that is mandating current PC standards. The hyper-liberal ideology is so accepted by Hollywood’s mainstream community it makes even the savviest power players repeatedly muck things up, financially and otherwise.

Shoehorning far-left politics into what are supposed to be entertainment projects, Hollywood studios are continuing the pattern of releasing loser reboots, prequels, sequels, and the like, including “Ghostbusters,” “Men in Black,” “The Last Jedi,” and “Terminator: Dark Fate.”

The reason the “Charlie’s Angels” franchise was viewed by insiders as a viable project for a reboot in the first place was its long track record of success. It all began with a hit television series that starred Farrah Fawcett, Jaclyn Smith, and Kate Jackson.

Fawcett lost her super hero battle with cancer in 2009. But at the height of her award winning career, she was a genuine cultural phenomenon, the pin-up girl of her era, setting trends for everything from a hairstyle that in modified form would live on to this day to a poster that would adorn bedroom walls and locker doors in untold numbers. The wildly popular “Charlie’s Angels” TV show dominated the airwaves from the mid-1970s to the early 1980s, garnering consistently high ratings. However, there was an innocent charm to the show that would be lost in the revisions to come.

As studios are so often prone to do, the television series became repackaged, and it emerged as a “Charlie’s Angels” movie in 2000, starring Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore, and Lucy Liu in the lead roles. The film debuted with a $40 million box office.

In 2003, Diaz, Barrymore, and Liu teamed up for a sequel, “Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle,” which took in almost $38 million in its first weekend. Left-wing propagandists had not yet infiltrated entertainment content to the degree that would ultimately come to fruition.

So here we are sixteen years after the “Charlie’s Angels” sequel. Sony brings in Elizabeth Banks to direct, star, and write, partially due to her successful directorial debut with Universal’s “Pitch Perfect 2,” but perhaps more importantly, for her having expressed her desire to redo “Charlie’s Angels” with a feminist overlay.

Opening up with a dismal $8.6 million box-office take, the current iteration of “Charlie’s Angels” makes it clear that the filmmaker had a different goal than that of making an entertaining action movie.

A montage of images from the world-over, featuring young women of supposed power, is meant to convey to movie-goers that they are in for something other than your average everyday cinematic diversion.

An opening scene features Kristen Stewart’s character subduing a male villain after he makes dastardly sexist remarks to her.

In a recent profile in WSJ Magazine, Banks evidently felt a need to highlight the film’s feminist bona fides, saying, “You’ve had 37 Spider-Man movies and you’re not complaining! I think women are allowed to have one or two action franchises every 17 years — I feel totally fine with that.”

However, “Charlie’s Angels” features a number of anemic action scenes, which end up being a major disappointment to viewers who came to see something more than an insipid “You go girl!” after-school special.

Even the hit song from the film, titled “Don’t Call Me Angel,” which features Ariana Grande, Miley Cyrus, and Lana Del Ray, couldn’t put viewers in theater seats.

The Hollywood Reporter extolled “Charlie’s Angels” for “unapologetically raising a feminist flag, championing female friendships and subtly making a point about the urgency of the ongoing climate crisis.”

That pretty much says it all, spelling it out in big bold letters why the November 2019 film turns out to be such a turkey.

The Real Jane Fonda

fonda_vietnam_3171436b

In an apparent attempt to garner some ego-boosting attention and high praise from Hollywood peers, actress Jane Fonda recently headed to Washington, D.C., where she participated in some climate-related protests. In trademark dramatic fashion, she also got herself arrested.

The octogenarian Oscar winner had tipped off the press with an Internet post, which read in part, “Moved to Washington, D.C. to be closer to the epicenter of the fight for our climate.”

In what had the feel of an ace Hollywood PR plan, Fonda let the world know, “Every Friday through January, I will be leading weekly demonstrations on Capitol Hill to demand that action by our political leaders be taken to address the climate emergency we are in. We can’t afford to wait.”

Aligning herself with the lunatic fringe of the Democrat Party, the activist-hero wanna-be warned that the clock was ticking on the current world. Eleven years was supposedly all that the third rock from the sun had left.

Fonda somehow got some co-stars to adopt her radical left-wing ideology as well. One of the things that seemed suspiciously staged were the photo ops in which she wore a vivid red trench coat while gently being detained by the police.

Her first arrest took place alongside actor Sam Waterston, followed by another with actor Ted Danson. She was arrested yet again with fellow actress-activists Rosanna Arquette and Catherine Keener.

Upon her fourth arrest, Fonda struck publicity gold. She spent the night in a D.C. jail.

“In my cell it was just me and the cockroaches,” Fonda said, recounting her “ordeal” to The Hollywood Reporter.

Interestingly, at last Friday’s protest there was no arrest for Fonda, or for anyone else for that matter. The police refused to detain protestors.

One thing’s for certain, the whole Fonda show has ended up taking valuable law enforcement resources away from the actual crimes that are being perpetrated in the nation’s capital.

Typical of Hollywood celebs, Fonda got what she was after – fawning press coverage from the establishment news media, the same media that for decades has ignored and/or whitewashed her own questionable past.

As Fonda panders to the woke generation, many of the younger left-leaners think that she is just another run-of-the-mill hate America socialist. But they really need to get to know the real Jane Fonda better. As painful as it is, those of us who have been around a while can assist the process.

Years ago, in a shameless so-called protest of the Vietnam War, Fonda earned the name “Hanoi Jane.”

It was 1972, a time when America was still very much engaged in battle overseas, with so many of our hero soldiers serving on the front lines. Fonda did an infamous photo-shoot with the enemy. She slid into the seat of a communist North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun vehicle and struck a pose. It was a horrifying sight, hurtful to our fighting men and women, our nation’s morale, and America’s heart.

Astounding that Fonda would be reliving her protest un-glory days this beautiful month of November, the month when the patriotic and grateful among us are pouring our hearts out to our beloved Veterans here and in heaven. We will never forget their love, honor, and sacrifice.

But likewise, we will never forget that 1972 photo. Not that we don’t appreciate the times when Fonda expressed some regret and even apologized for ill-conceived and hurtful actions over the years. But oh how those words ring hollow in light of her recent stagecraft.

Our Vietnam Vets are still waiting for the parade that would have welcomed them sweetly back home. They received nothing of the sort. For those of you who were not yet born or those who were too young to remember, read about it in a history book that pre-dates the liberal revisionism that passes for history today.

Truly tragically, Fonda’s current rhetoric reveals her disdain for a country that provided her with a level of success and abundance that few attain. A recent statement that she made to the New York Times captures the inexplicable sentiment.

“The same toxic ideology that … cut down the forests and exhausted the natural world just as it did the people — this foundational ideology is the same one that has brought us the human-driven climate change that we’re facing today,” Fonda said.

Maybe it’s just a case of misplaced priorities or perhaps she believes it is a way of making amends for past mistakes.

Whatever the case, in this enormously forgiving country of ours, it’s never too late to say “I’m sorry.”

Never too late for that “Welcome Home” parade either.

California’s Electric Power Grab?

US-CALIFORNIA-FIRE

California currently lays claim to a record number of homeless people that are living in urban squalor, a string of diseases from the Dark Ages that have made a 21st century return, and a series of wildfires that are ravaging forests, businesses, and homes alike.

Now comes the news that millions of people are having to live off the grid, after having been involuntarily unplugged, courtesy of the utility company.

Gavin Newsom is the current Democratic governor of the state. He continues to advocate the same kinds of policies that placed California in the disastrous predicament in which it finds itself on so many fronts.

In struggling to address the problematic multi-layered situation, Newsom recently made the decision to appoint an individual to look into the idea of the state actually taking over California’s major energy company, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E).

One of Newsom’s cabinet secretaries was recently given the title of “energy czar,” ostensibly to try and deal with, as well as find solutions to, the massive utility problems that the state faces.

PG&E is California’s largest privately owned utility. The beleaguered company has had to seek bankruptcy protection, due to the billions of dollars in claims that have been heaped upon it for damages related to wildfires that occurred in two previous fire seasons, which were allegedly sparked by company-owned equipment.

At a recent press conference, Newsom gave a not-so-veiled warning that involved a government takeover of the utility company.

“PG&E may or may not be able to figure this one out,” Newsom said. “If they cannot, we are not going to sit around and be passive. We are gaming out a backup plan. If PG&E is unable to secure its own future… then the state will prepare itself as backup for a scenario where we do that job for them.”

Rep. Ro Khanna (D–Calif.), in an appearance on CNBC, provided an even more explicit statement, saying, “It’s time for the state to take ownership of PG&E…”

As the devastating fires rage on and electrical power for the people gets turned off, many of the politicians appear to be practicing the art of distraction, with focus being redirected toward the power company.

PG&E has not helped with its standing in the public eye, though. The company has been trying to sell the idea that, as a supposed safeguard, it has been preempting wildfires and preventing potential tragedies from occurring by cutting electrical power to customers before any flames actually materialize.

The problem is that folks are finding it extremely difficult to endure the power outages because, as everyone knows, our day-to-day survival in the modern world is highly dependent on a consistent flow of electricity to light our homes, run our appliances, charge our phones, digital devices, and electric vehicles, power our home medical equipment, and myriad other essential requirements.

What the mainstream media will not cover is the other side of the utility story; that being, environmentalist groups have caused the heretofore routine maintenance of forests and fire-prone shrubbery to come to a halt.

A portion of the regulatory framework has been compiled by environmental activists and left-leaning politicians, who have implemented policies that prohibit safety buffers around electric power facilities. This has resulted in a significantly heightened fire risk across the state.

The lack of proper forest maintenance has allowed for an overgrowth that literally becomes fuel for wildfires during the recurring dry hot period, which descends upon California each year between the autumn and winter seasons.

PG&E is a utility run, in great part, by the state. It is under the watchful eye of a stringent regulatory agency called the California Public Utilities Commission, a government bureaucracy with a whole lot of power and very few checks and balances.

Because PG&E is a regulated monopoly, the state has significant influence on how the company is managed. As politicians are prone to do, the political leaders in this deepest of blue states appear to have turned a blind eye to the deferred maintenance that the power company has piled up.

PG&E has been further boxed in by a legal edict that exists in only one other state, Montana. The premise is that of inverse condemnation for utility companies. Under the law, liabilities are imposed on utilities whenever their equipment is involved.

And so it is that PG&E is now going into a fire season with tens of billions of dollars in potential liability hanging over its head.

Meanwhile it looks as though California’s political leaders see yet another plum for the picking. Dangling before them is one of modern life’s most basic necessities, electricity. If they seize it, they will have gotten control over people’s lives like never before seen in this nation.

As goes California, so goes the rest of the country?

It’s long past time for folks in my state to wake up; that is, of course, if they still own a battery powered alarm clock.

High Court Lets Anti-Christian Ruling Stand

ap_19236607035722-f8c39ac5d7bc85671f711e6587d7fa86f4e349d5-s800-c85

The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled on a profoundly significant case involving the religious rights of all Americans, and more specifically, the rights of our nation’s schoolchildren, which are safeguarded and secured by the all-important words contained in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The High Court declined to review an appeal submitted on behalf of a public high school student and a Christian, Caleigh Wood, who refused to compromise her religious beliefs by participating in a class assignment that was overtly anti-Christian in nature.

What conflicted with young Caleigh’s deeply held tenets of faith was a Muslim conversion prayer, which was part and parcel of the curricular assignment of a required course.

“There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.” This statement happens to be the Islamic conversion creed, i.e., the declaration that an individual professes when converting to the Islam faith. It is also the prayer that a practicing Muslim recites during the Muslim “call to prayer” practice.

Caleigh had enrolled in the above described course because it was a mandatory requirement that had to be completed before she would be allowed to graduate from high school.

In an attempt to abide by the school’s conditions with regard to the academic coursework and still not violate her own personal religious conscience, Caleigh offered to complete an alternative assignment.

However, the school refused to provide her any options that were non-violative of her Christian beliefs, despite the fact that the educational institution could have easily done so. Instead Caleigh was informed that if she did not participate in the Islamic conversion prayer she would be given a failing grade.

The eleventh-grade student was additionally compelled to view pro-Islamic material in the form of PowerPoint slides. One of the slides contained the following caption: “Most Muslim’s [sic] faith is stronger than the average Christian.” The lesson also included the following description regarding gender roles within the faith context: “Men are the managers of the affairs of women” and consequently “righteous women are therefore obedient.”

The approach taken within the class to the Christian faith stood in stark contrast with the one taken with regard to the Islamic faith. Islamic principles were presented under the auspices of “fact”; however, Christian principles were not afforded the same designation.

Regarding the comparison statement on strength of faith, Jack Tuttle, content specialist for the public schools in the county, testified that in his assessment the comparison reference was “inappropriate,” adding that he would have advised that it not be used in schools.

After Caleigh filed a lawsuit that pinpointed the violations of her Christian convictions, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals judge in the case proceeded to ignore legal precedent, essentially sanctioning the promotion of the religion of Islam in public schools.

However, requiring a student to say a prayer, whether contrary or not to a student’s personally held beliefs, is a blatant violation of constitutional principles and precedents.

The U.S. Supreme Court should have weighed in on the Fourth Circuit’s decision. In failing to do so, the High Court permitted a lower court to ignore precedent as well as a citizen’s concerns about having to recite a prayer of a different faith, and additionally having to write such, which was a clear violation of religious conscience. The presence of government coercion in this case is patently clear, since the religious activities in question were part of a required course and no alternative accommodations were provided.

The Fourth Circuit’s opinion flies in the face of the legal mandate that public schools must not disparage a student’s faith and/or require students to engage in prayer or religious exercises contrary to personally held religious convictions. Public schools are constitutionally bound to remain neutral in their approach to faith-related subjects.

The Supreme Court has historically provided greater constitutional protection with regard to freedom of conscience as it pertains to the nation’s younger demographic. This is partially due to the fact that public school attendance is statutorily compelled, and the school administration wields considerable power.

To this end, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the opening of legislative sessions with prayer, yet declared unconstitutional the opening of school sessions with prayer. Similarly, the High Court has upheld the legality of creche and menorah displays, while noting that it would be a different result if the displays arose in a school setting.

The High Court precedent requires lower courts to apply a heightened standard for coercion in the public school context. Unfortunately, the Fourth Circuit egregiously cast this heightened standard aside.

The refusal by the U.S. Supreme Court to take up Caleigh’s case not only allows the lower court ruling to stand, but it leaves the existing double standard in place, which is likely to wreak further havoc on our cherished First Amendment.

Quentin Tarantino Pushes Back on China

quentin-tarantino-and-once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-cast

Someone in Hollywood is finally standing up to China.

Bucking the trend of the big studios, which have been routinely allowing Chinese censors to dictate movie content, Quentin Tarantino has made it clear that he will not alter his latest film, “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood,” as Chinese officials had demanded.

As a result, China has cancelled the release of Tarantino’s fantasy-dramedy, which stars Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt. The homage to 1960s Hollywood had originally been scheduled to hit Chinese movie screens on October 25.

Chinese officials have not publicly revealed exactly what they found to be objectionable in the movie. Reportedly, the reason that the demand to modify came about was because of the filmmaker’s depiction of legendary martial arts practitioner and actor Bruce Lee.

Lee’s daughter Shannon had reportedly requested that the National Film Administration of China intervene over the portrayal of her father in the movie as a conceited braggart.

In a recent interview with The Wrap, Shannon inserted a broader controversy into her objections concerning the film.

“I can understand all the reasoning behind what is portrayed in the movie, I understand that the two characters are antiheroes and this is sort of like a rage fantasy of what would happen… and they’re portraying a period of time that clearly had a lot of racism and exclusion. I understand they want to make the Brad Pitt character this super bad-a** who could beat up Bruce Lee,” Shannon stated.

“But they didn’t need to treat him in the way that white Hollywood did when he was alive,” she added.

When the subject came up at a recent press conference in Moscow, Tarantino defended the depiction of Lee in the film, telling reporters the following:

“I heard him say things like that, to that effect. If people are saying, ‘Well he never said he could beat up Muhammad Ali,’ well yeah, he did. Not only did he say that, but his wife, Linda Lee, said that in her first biography I ever read… She absolutely said it. Bruce Lee was kind of an arrogant guy. The way he was talking, I didn’t just make a lot of that up.”

Media content is routinely and strictly controlled by communist bureaucrats in China as has been recently observed with the banning of Winnie the Pooh, the animated series “South Park,” and the NBA pre-season games.

It is yet to be seen whether Tarantino will hold the line and remain solid in his refusal to bend to the Chinese powers that be. In the past, the filmmaker made cuts to scenes in the movie “Django Unchained” after Chinese censors exerted pressure and the film’s release was cancelled.

After “Django Unchained” was re-edited and released in China, it ended up flopping, taking in a meager $2.7 million, despite a global box office of $425 million. However, Tarantino’s current offering, “Once Upon a Time,” features DiCaprio, an actor fave of Chinese audiences. Expectations were that the film was going to do much better than the above described re-edit debacle.

A critics’ favorite, “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” has increasingly become a part of the buzz surrounding next year’s Academy Awards. The movie’s performance has been a solid one at the box office, with a $367 million take. Its profit margin has been even more impressive, thanks to a budget of a mere $90 million.

If it were solely up to the studio, which is Sony Pictures, the Chinese censors might have had an easier time getting their way. However, Tarantino was able to obtain the contractual right to the final edited version of the movie, and that puts the filmmaker in the catbird seat in terms of decisions regarding any modifications to the final cut.