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).

Advertisements

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.

Bono Talks with Pope Francis about Economics, Environmentalism, and the Church Scandal

bono_pope_francis_vatican_sept_19_2018_vatican_media_cna

It is not easy to obtain a meeting with the Pope, but U2’s front man was somehow able to pull it off.

Pope Francis is the current leader of the Catholic Church. But he is also a head of state, with all of the power, influence, and interconnection with governments across the globe that goes along with being the Bishop of Rome.

At this critical time when Pope Francis is under unprecedented scrutiny, due to unanswered allegations that he knowingly protected a sexually abusive cardinal and additionally had a role in defending a clerical sex offender in Argentina, one might assume that the Pope’s schedule was being highly scrutinized by Vatican officials. Assumptions, though, often lead to mistaken conclusions, which may well be the case in this instance.

Puzzlingly, Paul David Hewson, a.k.a. Bono, lead singer of the rock group U2, was granted a meeting with the pontiff, which reportedly lasted for at least 30 minutes. At the meeting, which took place at the Casa Santa Marta hotel where Pope Francis maintains his residence, the rock singer and the Holy Father are said to have discussed topics ranging from capitalism and the environment to the clerical sex abuse scandal.

Well known as an adherent to the Christian faith, Bono is the son of a Protestant father and Catholic mother. He grew up in Ireland, a place where in the not so distant past Protestants and Catholics took up arms against one another; this was happening at the same time that the rock singer was coming of age.

Bono has actually discussed his belief in Jesus in a number of media interviews over the years. He was, however, highly criticized in Spring of 2018 by Christians of all stripes.

It was during this time period that Bono and his U2 band mates were publicly seeking to bring about the repeal of the Eighth Amendment to the Irish Constitution, an action that would ultimately lead to abortion-on-demand becoming the law of the land in the Emerald Isle.

U2 upset a sizable portion of its fan base as well as millions of pro-life adherents around the world on May 1, 2018, when it tweeted a heart-shaped graphic that read “Repeal the 8th.” The tweet essentially urged Twitter followers and fans to cast a vote for abortion in the Irish referendum. The Catholic Church was firmly opposed to the country’s proposed legalization of the life-ending procedure.

It seemed to many at the time that Bono had set aside his Christian beliefs and abandoned the vulnerable pre-born. On May 25, 2018, after all advocates, including Bono and his band, had completed their roles, the Irish people voted to repeal the constitutional amendment that had previously secured for pre-born babies the fundamental right to life.

This is why, for so many people, the sight of a sunglass-wearing rock star briefing reporters following a papal meeting was so surreal.

After his audience with the Pope, Bono addressed the Vatican press corps. Not mentioning whether his role in promoting the legalization of abortion in Ireland had been discussed, he noted that he had spoken with the pontiff about capitalism as well as about other issues in which the two shared a common interest.

Bono indicated to journalists that he and the Pope had discussed sustainable development, climate change, and the need for an equal distribution of the Earth’s resources.

“We have to re-think the wild beast that is capitalism,” the multimillionaire explained. “Although it is not immoral, it is amoral and it requires our instruction and he [Pope Francis] is very keen on that.”

Bono then revealed that a topic the two had discussed involved one about which the Pope has chosen to remain silent, i.e., the recent revelations regarding a multitude of sexual abuse allegations against the clergy of the Catholic Church.

Regarding the sex abuse scandal, Bono said, “I explained how it looks to some people like the abusers are being more protected than the victims, and you could see the pain in his face,” the U2 lead singer said, adding, “I thought he was sincere.”

In 2018 new allegations surfaced against the Catholic Church, which indicated that major church figures had protected priests who were accused of sexually abusing children, and Pope Francis himself was brought directly into the scandal.

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, who previously served as the Vatican’s ambassador to the United States, accused the current pope of having knowledge of the serious accusations against former U.S. Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, who was accused of taking sexual advantage of young seminarians.

Archbishop Viganò asserts that Pope Francis “knew from at least June 23, 2013, that Cardinal McCarrick was a serial predator.” He further asserts that instead of the Pope holding Cardinal McCarrick accountable, he shielded him and made him a trusted counselor.

Pope Francis has not yet publicly responded to the allegations. In August 2018, when the Pope was asked about the subject by reporters, he replied, “I will say sincerely that I must say this, to you and all of you who are interested: Read the document carefully and judge it for yourselves.”

“When a little time has passed and you have the conclusions, perhaps I will talk,” the Pope added.

The issues discussed by Pope Francis and Bono have worldwide political, economic, and ethical implications.

It is odd, to say the least, that Pope Francis’s communications on such serious matters would have come to the international public square via a publicist in celebrity clothing.

Les Moonves’s Career at CBS Comes to an End

djis2e_uwaar4-y

In July of 2018, the New Yorker’s Ronan Farrow completed a detailed investigation, centering on sexual misconduct allegations from six women against CBS Chairman and CEO Les Moonves.

The women claimed that Moonves had propositioned and/or had forcible physical contact with them, threatened retaliation against those who had rejected him, and otherwise maintained a workplace in which sexual harassment went unabated.

Allegations put forth by the women suggested that a toxic culture existed at CBS. When the allegations went public, Moonves responded at the time with an acknowledgement that he was responsible for making “some women uncomfortable.” However, he denied claims that he had harmed the careers of those who had resisted him.

It looked as though Moonves was on his way to weathering the #MeToo storm. CBS had launched an investigation into the allegations in Farrow’s report. However, Moonves was allowed to remain on the job while the investigation of sexual misconduct proceeded, unlike many other figures who had been accused of sexual impropriety.

Then, like a series of aftershocks after an earthquake, an additional six women stepped forward, via reporting by Farrow, with accusations against Moonves.

The most recent alleged incidents of sexual misconduct purportedly took place over a span of 30 years from the 1980s to the early 2000s.

The additional claims against Moonves by the second group of women contain more serious allegations than those reported by Farrow earlier in the year. This latest set of allegations includes incidents in which the entertainment executive is alleged to have forced victims to engage in sexual activity, exposed himself to alleged victims, or used physical violence and intimidation against them. Some of the women also claim that Moonves retaliated against them professionally after they refused to comply.

Some of the more recent accusers have chosen to go on the record and shed their anonymity, including a television executive whose claims date back to the 1980s and a former assistant who recounted an incident from 1994.

In a statement to the New Yorker, Moonves acknowledged that three of the encounters occurred and claimed they were consensual. He flatly denied using his position in a retaliatory way to interfere with the careers of the women.

Under the circumstances, options appear to be limited in this case. The relevant statute of limitations does not allow a proceeding using criminal law, and obtaining witnesses and/or documents from thirty or forty years ago poses a great deal of difficulty.

What really caused Moonves’s tenure at CBS to end, prior to the conclusion of the investigations, were reports in numerous media outlets that negotiations were taking place concerning a proposed exit package for the television executive that involved a large dollar amount.

The most recent accusers were prompted in part to come forward due to the public reports of Moonves’s exit package, which was said to be valued at approximately $100 million.

“Many of the women found that very, very frustrating,” Farrow told CNN. “They felt this was a board that has let a powerful man who makes a lot of money for this company, in the words of one person, ‘get away with it.’”

The end result is that six weeks after Farrow published the first allegations against him and twenty-three years after he first joined CBS, Moonves has been forced out of the network.

However, the previously reported $100 million payment package to Moonves is likely to be eliminated or drastically reduced, due to the increased potential culpability relating to the allegations of the second group of women as well as the cumulative effect of the allegations of all twelve accusers.

CBS’s leverage against Moonves has been significantly increased because the company is now able to claim that the executive may be terminated “for cause.”

Significantly, the exit agreement reportedly also includes a settlement of the litigation between Moonves and Shari Redstone, the controlling shareholder of both CBS and Viacom. Moonves and Redstone had been in a heated legal battle over whether to combine CBS and Viacom, with Redstone urging a merger and Moonves resisting such a move.

With Moonves gone, the merger is highly likely to take place in the very near future.

Hollywood Has a Meltdown over Roe v. Wade Film

16867473389_38224ac3ea_b

“You can’t handle the truth!”

The memorable line by Jack Nicholson in “A Few Good Men” fits like a glove.

When it comes to subject matter that is outside the leftist box, Hollywood just can’t endure any factual information coming to light, as witnessed by the massive overreaction by the entertainment elite to a pro-life project that is currently in production.

According to the Hollywood Reporter, the film, which deals with the backstory of the landmark decision that legalized abortion in America, Roe v. Wade, is being shot in Louisiana. Its working title is “1973,” a reference to the year of the Supreme Court decision that polarized the nation.

The left is particularly rattled over the abortion issue right now since President Donald Trump is naming a conservative nominee to the Supreme Court.

Nick Loeb, a banking heir who formerly dated actress Sofia Vergara, is directing the movie and began filming in mid-June. He told the Hollywood Reporter that his court battle with Vergara over access to the couple’s frozen embryos prompted him to do the film.

“I have my own pro-life issue going on with my fight over embryos, but no one has really told the whole truth about Roe v. Wade in a film,” Loeb said.

Aware of the disdain that the entertainment industry has for the pro-life perspective, Loeb initially attempted to be low key about the project, cast and crew so as to forestall the backlash that would inevitably come.

However, when Loeb told LifeNews about his motivation behind the film, he left subtlety behind. “This is the untold story of how [abortion activists] lied and manipulated Jane Roe, the media, and the courts into the decision to allow abortion in 1973,” Loeb said.

In knee-jerk fashion, the entertainment press began trashing the film, despite the project not having been completed, edited, or screened.

–The Daily Beast published a piece with the headline “‘Roe v. Wade’ Script Leak: Pro-Life Movie Pushes Conspiracy Theories and Lies.”

–A Huffington Post headline read “Anti-Abortion Movie About Roe v. Wade Is Pushed By Nick Loeb.”

–The New York Daily News used the following title for an article on the movie: “No one wants to help Nick Loeb make his anti-abortion film ‘Roe v. Wade.’”

Particularly snarky was the Daily Beast’s characterization of the project as a “movie in chaos,” describing cast and crew departures due to the nature of the subject matter. And the Hollywood Reporter indicated that a costume maker, electrician, and director had walked off the project.

The subject matter also created difficulties for Loeb’s choice of filming locations. Loeb shared the following about a request that was made to shoot at Louisiana State University: “We were told we were rejected due to our content, even though it will be a PG-rated film. They refused to put it in writing, but they told us on the phone it was due to content.”

Even after the production was permitted to use a local synagogue, the crew was kicked out after the leaders found out about the movie’s message.

“Once they found out what the film was about, they locked us out. We had to call the police so that the extras and caterers could retrieve their possessions,” Loeb told the Hollywood Reporter.

Facebook blocked crowdfunding for the film, but it is still ongoing at GoFundMe and IndieGoGo.

The Daily Beast obtained a copy of a leaked script that reportedly showed the project’s “severe anti-abortion stance.” The Beast is apoplectic that the narrator of the story is Dr. Bernard Nathanson (portrayed by Loeb). Nathanson happens to have co-founded the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL). However, after having witnessed the details of an abortion procedure via ultrasound, he became a dedicated pro-life activist.

Nathanson became an archenemy of the left after having narrated the profoundly compelling 1984 pro-life film “The Silent Scream.”

The cast of the upcoming pro-life movie includes many openly conservative Hollywood residents including Stacey Dash, who portrays Dr. Mildred Jefferson, a founder of the National Right to Life Committee; Jon Voight, Robert Davi, Corbin Bernsen, John Schneider, William Forsythe, Wade Williams, Richard Portnow, and Jarrett Ellis Beal, who portray Supreme Court justices; and Jamie Kennedy, Joey Lawrence, and Greer Grammer (daughter of Kelsey Grammer) are also cast members.

Adding to the left-wing discomfort are some cameos courtesy of commentators Tomi Lahren and Milo Yiannopoulos.

The film’s executive producer is pro-life advocate Alveda King, the niece of Martin Luther King, Jr.

“This big screen movie is the real untold story of how a mountain of lies led to an injustice that deprived millions of people of human dignity and human rights,” King says in the trailer.

The untold story includes Planned Parenthood’s scheme to recruit a pregnant girl to file a lawsuit that would create a right to an abortion. According to the film’s description, Nathanson, Betty Friedan and Planned Parenthood searched “the country to find a pregnant girl” that they could “use to sue the government for her right to have an abortion.”

The film also takes on the forbidden facts concerning the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger. Despite the left’s attempts to minimize Sanger’s fondness for eugenics, Sanger solicited eugenicists’ writings for her conferences, asked them to testify in congressional hearings, and gathered them together to advance the cause.

Sanger also urged state-imposed compulsory sterilization and segregation of people with mental or physical disability, those in poverty, and those considered illiterate. She sought out eugenicists to become board members of her American Birth Control League, the predecessor organization to what is now known as Planned Parenthood.

Seth Rogen Spreads His Hate Around

c7affe6db7a6cbdcbb6486a28e0e62dc_800_420

Seth Rogen has a strange way of showing love for his fans.

The Canadian actor recently appeared on “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” and told a story about how he laughingly rejected some fans that had requested to have their photos taken with him.

Maybe Rogen was trying to shore up his reputation with some of his leftist Hollywood pals, many of whom have been hysterical about the U.S. border policy.

The Rogen fans who were rebuffed turned out to be the children of the current Speaker of the House and the Speaker himself.

In his Colbert appearance, Rogen describes a summit to which he had been invited to speak, an event that was hosted in early June 2018 by former GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney. The gathering was held ostensibly to assist in finding a cure for Alzheimer’s.

However, it seems as though Rogen may have been uncomfortable about having been present at a GOP gathering. His likely discomfort may account for his peculiar willingness to boast about his despicable behavior toward fans who prior to this occasion had likely looked up to him.

In relaying the story, Rogen tells of how two “young fans” that he characterizes in racially charged terms as “very white” approached him and told him that their dad was a fan and would like to meet him.

Rogen soon realized the father was none other than Paul Ryan. The actor described the meeting in the following way: “My whole body puckered, I tensed up, and I didn’t know what to do,” Rogen said. “And I turned around and Paul Ryan was walking towards me.”

After shaking hands, Ryan requested that Rogen allow a photo to be taken with the Speaker and his children, but Rogen would have none of it. Instead he flat-out rejected the request.

Rogen explained to Colbert’s audience, “I look over and his [Ryan’s] kids are standing right there expectantly, clearly fans of mine, and I said, ‘No way, man!’”

Famous for its blatent insensitivity, the Colbert crowd cheered vociferously, despite the hurt that Ryan and his children likely suffered.

After telling the studio audience how he summarily rejected Ryan in front of his children, Rogen then added insult to injury by bragging about how he really gave it to the Speaker in front of his kids.

“Furthermore, I hate what you’re doing to the country at this moment and I’m counting the days until you no longer have one iota of the power that you currently have,” Rogen purportedly told Ryan.

Claiming he felt “conflicted” about subjecting Ryan’s children to his mean-spirited remarks, Rogen evidently just couldn’t resist the urge to diss the kids’ dad.

Throwing in a bit more reverse racism, Rogen said, “His kids seemed lovely, and very Caucasian.”

Guilt seemed to manifest itself until arrogance got the better of him as Rogen said, “It’s not their fault, but at the same time they should probably learn that if they like a movie or song, the person who made that probably doesn’t like their dad that much.”

During the appearance, Rogen jumped to the topic of the border and also praised his native country for legalizing marijuana.

“This week Trump made prisons for kids, and Canada legalized recreational marijuana,” Rogen said. “I don’t know if there’s an official grading system for the weeks a country has, but that was a good week for Canada.”

Because the hosts of “Fox & Friends Weekend” had some less than flattering things to say about Rogen’s Colbert appearance, the actor apparently felt the need to lash out with a tweet, which read, “Oh man. Now my TL [timeline] is gonna be filled with virtue signaling snowflakes who are offended by my free speech.”

This is the same guy who belittled the Christian concept of the rapture in “This is the End,” disparaged Christmas in “The Night Before,” and tried to get Costco to stop selling Dinesh D’Souza’s book “The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left. ”

Rogen had used his Twitter account to ask Costco, “Why do you sell books that compare left wing people like me to Nazis?”

Rogen is apparently trying to stretch into serious dramatic roles now, beginning with a film called “Newsflash” about the day President John F. Kennedy was assassinated.

In the upcoming movie, Rogen will play the role of legendary news anchor Walter Cronkite, who is the person who earned the title of “the most trusted man in America.”

Paul Ryan and his kids may have a few choice words to say about that.

Bill Maher, Stephen Colbert and the Death of Late-night Comedy

gettyimages-631178240-550x330

With liberals targeting for destruction one cultural institution after another, it was inevitable that late-night comedy was going to have its turn.

Ironically, late-night comic hosts, many of whom were trailblazers in the laugh industry, have slowly but surely morphed into lemmings, substituting smug political claptrap for comedy.

Rather than entertain, the ones who are lucky enough to have actually made it into comedy’s top echelon are now catering to a flimsy fan base of enraged resisters and hate-driven hypocrites.

Bill Maher, host of HBO’s “Real Time,” is the latest example. He recently let it be known how bitter leftists view President Donald Trump’s economic track record.

Recognizing the phenomenal economy under President Trump’s leadership, Maher stated that he believes it is critical for the U.S. economy to collapse in order to rid the country of a president with whom he disagrees.

“I feel like the bottom has to fall out at some point, and by the way, I’m hoping for it because I think one way you get rid of Trump is a crashing economy,” Maher said. “So please, bring on the recession. Sorry if that hurts people but it’s either root for a recession, or you lose your democracy.”

The left is so steeped in hatred it is willing to let the best interests of the nation take a back seat to spite. And like far too many others in his industry, Maher is more than willing to see his neighbor harmed than to see President Trump succeed.

It is hard to fathom how late-night comedy allowed itself to descend to such a pitiful depth. Late-night television was created and branded by the pioneers of the medium – Jack Paar, Steve Allen, and of course the man who defined the forum, “The King of Late-Night” Johnny Carson.

Carson was the guy who dropped in unannounced but you never wanted him to leave. No matter what had transpired in the course of the day, he could make you forget in a single quip. He was simply a friend that taught you how to smile yourself to sleep.

The current crop of late-night hosts could benefit from the master in more ways than one. A single show of Carson’s could bring in as many as 9 million viewers. By comparison, CBS’s “Late Show,” hosted by Stephen Colbert, is currently the highest-rated late-night program, but a good night for Colbert is typically a third of the viewers that Carson had, in part because Colbert’s program generally consists of Trump trashing and partisan punches.

Viewers today admittedly have a lot more options when it comes to the late-night timeslot. In addition to broadcast networks’ offerings of Colbert, Jimmy Kimmel, and Jimmy Fallon, there are numerous cable offerings, which include TBS’s Conan O’Brien, Comedy Central’s Trevor Noah, HBO’s John Oliver, and BET’s Robin Thede, along with broadcast networks’ very late-nighters James Corden and Seth Meyers.

Late-night writers generally cater to viewers who use social media to watch highlight video footage from previous programs. Shows with late-night content that stream to viewers include Hulu’s Sarah Silverman and Netlix’s Joel McHale and Michelle Wolf, who is best known for her embarrassingly unfunny performance at the most recent White House Correspondents Dinner. Weekly late-nighters such as Comedy Central’s Jim Jeffries and TBS’s Samantha Bee are also part of the mix.

Virtually all of the shows specialize in targeting the president, and Bee is one of the hosts who clearly illustrates the lowlights of today’s pathetic programming. Referring to the daughter of the president in the crudest of ways, Bee incurred a deserved backlash, which prompted defections by a number of sponsors. Both Bee and TBS later apologized, but the comic was not fired or suspended. In another humorless incident, there was a young man who had attended the Conservative Political Action Conference and was bashed with a comment about “Nazi hair.” It turned out that the young man was actually suffering from Stage 4 brain cancer, and Bee was again forced to apologize.

It is painful to have to say that in this sorry state of late-night comedy, television’s most visible hosts have turned into boring political preachers and in the process have themselves become the joke.