Category: Hollywood Politics

When Hollywood Made the Big Left Turn

The Hollywood tale begins in the 1920s.

It was a time when most major studio heads were decidedly on the conservative side of the political aisle.

So how did the entertainment industry veer into the leftist stratosphere?

Well, the process seemed to begin after some Hollywood-related scandals caused quite a bit of public embarrassment, which prompted the studios to become more proactive in terms of controlling the inner workings of the movie business.

Rather than having to bow to government regulators, the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America hired a former U.S. postmaster general by the name of Will Hays to help develop guardrails for movie production.

In 1933, Hays pushed the film industry to adopt what would come to be known as the Hays Code, which established rules that set boundaries pertaining to onscreen depictions of sex and crime.

Films and eventually television content that conformed to the code received a seal of approval upon which the movie-going public could rely, particularly families with children.

A pivotal event occurred in the late 1940s, which resulted in a transformation of the industry itself.

Some of the intellectuals around town, who were purportedly sympathetic to communist ideology, were investigated by the House Un-American Activities Committee.

The Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals provided to the committee the names of those who were alleged to be communists as well as those who supported communist organizations.

Notable entertainment figures of the time, including Gary Cooper, Ronald Reagan, Robert Taylor, Sterling Hayden, and Edward G. Robinson named names and/or expressed concern about subversive content of screenplays.

Most of the names that were named were those of screenwriters. A select group of blacklisted individuals became known as the “Hollywood Ten.”

Hollywood is still burdened with an obsession over the blacklist era. Movies that deal with the subject are continuously being produced: “Good Night, and Good Luck,” “The Front,” “Guilty by Suspicion,” “Yoo-Hoo, Mrs. Goldberg,” “The Majestic,” and two biopics, both titled “Trumbo” based on blacklisted screenwriter Dalton Trumbo, just to name a few.

At the time of the blacklist and up until the late 1960s, Hollywood was structured along the lines of what came to be called the “studio system.”

This top-down model was controlled by five major movie studios known as the Big Five, and three smaller studios known as the Little Three.

The Big Five was comprised of Paramount, Warner Bros., RKO Pictures, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, and 20th Century Fox.

The Little Three were United Artists, Universal, and Columbia Pictures.

Interestingly, today’s largest and most powerful company, Disney, was not part of either the Big Five or the Little Three.

The studio system, as well as Hollywood’s Golden Era, took a hit both in power and influence as a result of a landmark Supreme Court decision, United States v. Paramount, an antitrust case.

Originally filed a decade earlier, the landmark case shocked the entertainment industry with language that called for the complete separation of ownership of movie theaters from film production and distribution, effectively terminating the studio system.

This legal decision, along with the continuing backlash against the blacklist, ended up being the catalyst for Hollywood’s extreme leftward tilt.

The studios opened up to independent filmmakers, and by the early 1960s the Hays Code had been replaced by a rating system that had been implemented by the newly formed Motion Picture Association of America, the same rating system that the industry uses to this day.

A new breed of filmmakers began to produce titles with defiant, rebellious, and anti-conventional themes, such as “Easy Rider,” “Midnight Cowboy,” and “Carnal Knowledge.”

By the late 1970s, its metamorphosis was evident. Hollywood continued over the years to become ever more left-wing, which cultivated the soil from which the unimpeded weeds of wokeness grew.

So here we are stuck with the 96th Academy Awards ceremony that recently aired, which, among other things, had imposed a set of DEI rules for a nominee to qualify for the Best Picture Oscar.

Needless to say, the DEI rules are at a minimum a profound obstacle to the creative process and another truly divisive thorn in our culture’s side.

Veteran actor Richard Dreyfuss gave a candid response to the Academy’s DEI standards, after they had been revealed to the public.

“They make me vomit,” Dreyfuss said. “Because this is an art form, it’s also a form of commerce, and it makes money, but it’s an art.”

Is life imitating art or art imitating life?

In a woke world, it’s anybody’s guess.

The Lopsided Humor of Late Night TV

Laughter is apparently built into our DNA, because I recently saw an ultrasound of a pre-born baby in full smile mode.

I don’t know what the little guy thought was so funny, but it’s a pretty sure bet he wasn’t listening to one of TV’s late-night comedy shows. They stopped delivering laughs a long time ago.

It all started when late-night hosts began moving further and further to the political left. Then so many of the jokes went woke. And finally Big Censorship came in with a knockout punch.

It’s no wonder that over the past several years late-night revenues have plummeted. Shows on CBS, NBC, and ABC are down significantly from five years prior, and network executives have even cut back on programming.

The following info may shed some light on what appears to be a major contributing factor in the demise of late-night humor.

While participating in a panel discussion, former host of the “The Daily Show” Trevor Noah stated that he and his team of writers look to the underlying news for their joke inspiration.

“I’ll say, ‘What is the news, what are the facts, what’s the truth?’ and then we will put the jokes on top. It’s the icing on the cake,” Noah said.

The problem is the icing on the cake tastes rotten to a huge segment of viewing audiences.

Some eye-opening research underscores the extreme partisanship that is embedded within late-night television programming.

The Media Research Center (MRC) released some compelling data, which were obtained during the time period between Labor Day and the Monday night that preceded Election Day of 2022.

Results of the study indicated that there had been 47 left-leaning guests who had appeared on late-night shows.

During this same time period, not a single conservative-leaning guest was booked to appear on the late-night shows.

In September of 2023, Bill Maher said out loud what late-night hosts are really up to.

“What they do is say exactly what a liberal audience wants them to say…,” Maher stated.

Maher also responded to a question about why other talk show hosts are handed Emmy Awards, despite having much smaller audiences than his own.

“Because I tell the truth,” Maher said. “I don’t perform for just one-half of the country and say the things that will make them applaud.”

A study recently conducted by the MRC provides additional evidence of the political bias that exists on the part of late-night television hosts and writers.

The MRC study analyzed the comedic content contained within the programming of the major late-night shows, which included ABC’s “Jimmy Kimmel Live!,” Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show,” NBC’s “Late Night with Seth Meyers,” NBC’s “The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon,” CBS’s “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert,” and up until the show stopped airing in April 2023 “The Late Late Show with James Corden.”

An extraordinary 81% of the comedic material contained within the programming was aimed directly at conservative-leaning public figures.

Certain shows contained more one-sided material than others. Kimmel’s show led the pack when it came to partisan bits aimed at right-of-center targets. Programming included slanted humor that 88% of the time lampooned conservatives.

Late-night TV took the same asymmetrical approach with the Supreme Court. Conservative-leaning Justices were on the receiving end of punch lines at a ratio of 64 to 1.

Late night shows used to be an American staple. Now at least half the country has tuned out because folks are tired of being the butt of old worn-out unfunny mediocre jokes.

Try poking at both sides and you just might bring back the funny.

Our babies in waiting are already primed to laugh.

‘Seinfeld’ Episode Seemingly Springs to Life

“How can anyone not like him?” the famed TV Mom utters about her son in an episode of the smash sitcom “Seinfeld.”

The character she is referring to happens to be playing himself. He’s the one and only Jerry Seinfeld, comedian extraordinaire.

Along with his lovably quirky television family, Seinfeld and friends are still hanging out in living rooms around the globe, thanks to the wonderful world of syndication.

In the 1980s, Seinfeld was at the top of his stand-up game. Hugely funny and for the most part family-friendly, the comic was able to maintain the trademark style that garnered him scores of late-night guest spots and other sought-after appearances.

The inevitable happened fairly quickly. Television executives chased after him, trying to make a deal that would give him a show of his own.

As fate would have it, he was friends with comedy writer Larry David. The two collaborated on a sitcom in which Jerry would play the real-life character with whom he’s most familiar, himself.

The show “Seinfeld” ended up becoming one of Hollywood’s highest-rated sitcoms ever.

The Landmark Theatre, located in downtown Syracuse, New York, is a venue where Seinfeld was recently set to take to the stand-up stage.

Protestors gathered outside the entrance in anticipation of his performance.

Before he was able to deliver his first punch line, a protest march began, complete with the usual antagonistic bells and whistles.

Protesters hurled around the “genocide” word and called for the comedy show to be shut down.

The mob’s targeting of Seinfeld reportedly began with an Instagram post from the local chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America.

Other socialist groups were reportedly involved, including the Syracuse chapter of the Party for Socialism and Liberation, the Resilient Indigenous Action Collective, and the Syracuse Collective for Palestinian Liberation.

The Instagram post accused Israel of “genocidal atrocities” and stated that the United States is “directly responsible” for them.

Another post by the organizers accused the “Seinfeld” star of being “one of several celebrities denying the genocide of Palestinians.”

The Hollywood community itself remains divided over the October 7 terrorist attack in Israel. Seinfeld is one of a significant number of celebrities who have spoken out against the attack that occurred on innocent civilians.

His name appears alongside hundreds of other Hollywood celebrities in two open letters that condemn Hamas, show solidarity with Israel, and call for the 240 hostages that were taken by the terrorist organization to be returned.

Days after the Hamas attacks Seinfeld posted an image on his Instagram account, along with the following words: “I Stand With Israel.”

He shared that when he was 16 years old he had the experience of living and working in Israel.

“I have loved our Jewish homeland ever since. My heart is breaking from these attacks and atrocities. But we are also a very strong people in our hearts and minds. We believe in justice, freedom, and equality. We survive and flourish no matter what. I will always stand with Israel and the Jewish people,” he stated.

The story highlights the social media division that has occurred, which is similar to the Hollywood one. Most are pointing out that Seinfeld is an individual who is merely trying to continue in his profession. He has no ties to any government and is not speaking from a political perspective, but rather a human one.

Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla., agrees, as he has indicated on social media.

“Jerry Seinfeld is an iconic American COMEDIAN who’s also Jewish,” Rep. Donalds posted on X.

The congressman added that “he’s a COMEDIAN not a diplomat or gov official.”

Invoking another “Seinfeld” episode, was it all just a protest about nothing?

We can only wish.

‘Sound of Freedom’ Producer Eduardo Verástegui Offers Mexico a Presidential Choice

In Mexico, Eduardo Verástegui is a household name. He’s a musical entertainer and telenovelas superstar.

His career blossomed in the United States as well as in Mexico, with his celebrity status rising as he worked with high-profile industry figures, such as Calvin Klein, Jennifer Lopez, and Sofia Vergara, to name a few.

Over the years he acquired a number of movies and television shows under his belt, which include “Chasing Papi,” “Bella,” “Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2,” “CSI: Miami,” and “Charmed.”

Most recently, he played the roles of lead producer and cast member for the international film phenom “The Sound of Freedom,” which has now reached a level close to $200 million in global box-office.

In his latest project, he has chosen to enter the political arena, and he’s going for a top-tier spot. The necessary paperwork has already filed for his run as an independent presidential candidate in Mexico’s June 2024 election.

Verástegui’s motivation to have a role with a purpose in the public square may relate to the time period in which he experienced one of his big Hollywood acting breakthroughs.

After being cast in the comedy “Chasing Papi,” he sought voice coaching lessons to up his English pronunciation skills. As providence would have it, his language tutor was a committed Catholic Christian named Jasmine. Evidently, she affected his thought processes far beyond mere diction lessons.

Over the course of a six-month tutoring period, he re-discovered his faith and resolved to turn away from any involvement in films that would conflict with his Christian beliefs.

To this end, with fellow founders and partners Sean Wolfington, Alejandro Gomez Monteverde, and Leo Severino, Verástegui co-founded a production company called Metanoia Films, the purpose of which was to create media that contained edifying content.

In his recent Mexican presidential candidate announcement, he emphasized life and freedom as the key driving principles in his decision.

“After a period of discernment, I made the most important decision of my life: I have just registered with the INE [National Electoral Institute] my intention as an aspiring independent candidate for the presidency of the Mexican Republic for the elections on June 2, 2024,” he wrote in an Instagram post.

“My fight is for life. My fight is for freedom. It is time to remove the same old people from power. Our country needs a new way of doing politics, to eradicate corruption and impunity,” he stated.

In the past, he campaigned for pro-life causes and even conducted prayers on social media. In addition, he put his faith into action, establishing Manto de Guadalupe, a pro-life organization based in Los Angeles, which includes a crisis pregnancy center.

His announcement of a presidential run comes after the Mexico Supreme Court issued an unthinkable landmark decision that legalizes abortion in a once-fervently faith-filled country; a decision that paves the way for a massive increase in the killing of pre-born infants.

Prior to the Supreme Court decision, only 12 Mexican states and the Federal District had legalized abortion. However, this current decision allows abortions to take place across all of Mexico.

In his independent run for Mexico’s presidency, Verástegui faces quite a difficult path. As an independent, he is challenging both of the nation’s established political parties, each of which has already selected its candidate.

Verástegui is portraying himself as a new kind of leader. This may be advantageous for him because he is able to stand in stark contrast to the established parties, which the public, in large part, distrusts.

The Pan, Mexico’s purported right-of-center party, is likely to be targeted by Eduardo’s presidential campaign in a manner reminiscent of U.S. candidates that have run against Republicans of the establishment kind.

Last year Verástegui enhanced his bona fides by hosting the Conservative Political Action Conference in Mexico, an international forum for populist conservative leaders from around the globe.

Should he succeed in gaining a place on the ballot, he will be able to offer voters in Mexico an alternative to two left-of-center establishment candidates, Pan candidate Mexico Senator Xóchitl Gálvez and the governing left-wing Morena candidate, former Mexico City Mayor Claudia Sheinbaum.

To win a place on the June 2024 ballot, he has until January 2024 to obtain signatures of support from 1% of voters, which are distributed across 17 states.

An amazing arc of success surrounds Verástegui’s life. A providential win of the presidency could be forthcoming.

If this happens, positive changes will surely be in store for our neighboring country South of the Border.

And the world will get to see a glimmering example of how celebrity power can work for the good.

We Are All James Woods

James Woods is well known for his accomplishments in the entertainment arts.

Consummate actor of stage and screen, he gained a considerable degree of fame for his role in the film adaptation of Joseph Wambaugh’s 1973 non-fiction book “The Onion Field,” a crime thriller extraordinaire.

Over the years James has had the opportunity to work with many a legendary Hollywood director, a distinguished roster that includes the names of David Cronenberg (“Videodrome”), Oliver Stone (“Salvador” and “Nixon”), Richard Attenborough (“Chaplin”), and Martin Scorsese (“Casino”).

In addition to the big-screen circuit, he has taken strolls down the TV road, playing characters the likes of America’s Mayor in the film “Rudy: The Rudy Giuliani Story.”

Industry trophies stand as a testament to his achievements. Among other accolades, he has two Oscar nominations and two Emmy wins to his credit.

Most recently, James has become a focal point of the so-called Twitter Files, the first in a series of documents released to journalist Matt Taibbi by Twitter CEO Elon Musk.

The files detail the behind-the-scenes communications surrounding Twitter’s content moderation decision making (under previous ownership), which involved, among other things, the suppression of a 2020 New York Post story about President Joe Biden’s son Hunter and Hunter’s notorious laptop.

During a recent two-hour long Twitter Spaces session, new Twitter owner Elon indicated that a second drop of Twitter Files will take place at an undisclosed future date, files that will go to Taibbi and Bari Weiss, an additional journalist.

The documents highlight how, just prior to the 2020 presidential election, Twitter executives worked closely with Democrats to eliminate content that was highly inconvenient for them.

The company’s rationale at the time for the extraordinary censorship imposed was that the story constituted “hacked materials,” a determination questioned by many insiders.

The New York Post had made it clear that a computer repairman had the laptop in his possession because Hunter himself had dropped it off.

There was never any hacking.

In simple terms, then-Twitter executives characterized a story that did not emanate from hacked material, as exactly the opposite – hacked material. This was likely done to explicitly hide the facts from an unknowing public.

Files also reveal that Twitter seemingly complied with the Democratic Party’s directives in suppressing the accounts of select celebrities, quite strikingly the account of James Woods.

In the words of Taibbi, “Celebrities and unknowns alike could be removed or reviewed at the behest of a political party.”

James has stepped forward to lead a class action lawsuit against the social media platform as well as the DNC over damage done to his personal civil rights, reputation and career.

“How would you like to fund a class action suit for those who were suppressed?” James asked Elon in a tweet. “I’ll be happy to be lead plaintiff.”

In a recent interview, James emphasized his intent to file a lawsuit over the Twitter matter.

“I can guarantee you one thing more than anything else you’ll ever hear in your life: I will be getting a lawyer. I will be suing the Democratic National Committee no matter what,” he stated.

“Whether I win or lose, I am going to stand up for the rights that every American [is entitled to]…,” James said.

James knows what informed individuals know; that the rights of each and every American are now on the line.

The Taibbi posts also confirmed that former Twitter executive Vijaya Gadde was central to the New York Post‘s suppression of the Hunter laptop story.

Gadde, the social media platform’s former head of something called “legal, policy, and trust,” was later appointed by the Biden administration as an advisor to the Department of Homeland Security in its supposed effort to counter “disinformation.”

Gadde is sure to be brought before the House Judiciary Committee when Republicans take control in January 2023.

“We’re tracking Vijaya Gadde’s role in the suppression of the New York Post story on Hunter Biden’s laptop. We absolutely plan to investigate this more. Stay tuned,” a committee spokesperson told the New York Post.

For his part, Rep. James Comer (R-KY) has said that anyone at Twitter who was involved in censoring The Post’s story will be testifying to the House Oversight Committee.

In response to the report, Rep. Comer said that he wants to bring in “every employee at Twitter who was involved in suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story” to “explain their actions to the American people.”

He also referred to the Twitter ban as “election suppression.”

Polls have indicated that if voters had known about the Hunter story prior to the 2020 election, the information would have had a determinative impact on the outcome.

According to Taibbi, the only Democrat in Congress who seemed to react to the suppression was Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), who deserves credit for reminding his colleagues that the nation must be guided by First Amendment principles.

Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY) gave a brief summation on what has been revealed to the world by Elon.

“Twitter helped the Biden campaign & Democratic lawmakers to conceal information days before a presidential election. This type of suppression of free speech and information sharing is indefensible,” Rep. Malliotakis said, adding, “House Republicans must thoroughly investigate this matter to ensure big tech is reined in.”

James is hoping that others are going to join him in his fight within the court system.

He has let it be known that he is not one to shy away from legal battles.

“I’ve been a target of these people for six years. They have destroyed my career. They have destroyed my livelihood. They’ve destroyed my faith in a country that my family has defended in the military since the Revolutionary War,” he said.

Spoken like someone with the heart of a patriot.

Here’s hoping that more join James Woods in heart and deed.

Funny Guy David Zucker’s Serious Warning

Humor is David Zucker’s specialty.

Not the lazy blue variety that passes for comedy these days, but the laugh out loud kind that makes your sides hurt, your eyes water and the world disappear.

The mega-successful film director, producer and screenwriter is best known for the legendary spoof flick “Airplane!” and the side-splitting “Naked Gun” and “Scary Movie” franchises.

He happens to be one of our culture’s current reigning experts on all things funny, and he’s sounding an alarm bell for all to hear.

Lucky for us he has joined the ranks of other comedy greats who have issued similar warnings: Dennis Miller, Jerry Seinfeld, Dave Chappelle, Chris Rock, Gilbert Gottfried, Mel Brooks, Adam Carolla, Steve Harvey and John Cleese.

The giants of humor are all saying pretty much the same thing; that Tinseltown’s head honchos and their like-minded fellow residents of the New Woke Hollywood are virtually strangling comedians, comedy writers and comedy itself.

Zucker was recently featured in a video posted by PragerU, where he shared some reflections on his trademark comedy.

He doesn’t think the jokes that propelled his films to the top could be delivered today. Too many folks now fail to understand the nature of comedy.

Unlike most audiences of the past, many of today’s joke consumers are so easily offended that it has risen to the level of ridiculous.

If everything is offensive, then nothing is funny.

New Woke Hollywood is decimating the comedic arts, along with the writers and performers that bring laughter to our lives.

As Zucker stated, “They’re destroying comedy because of nine percent of the people who don’t have a sense of humor.”

He used a real-life Hollywood example to illustrate the point. In a pitching session that he and his writing partner did for a James Bond/Mission: Impossible-style parody, he was stunned by the reaction of an executive just to some of the project’s dialogue.

“One female executive said, ‘This joke is getting pretty risqué here.’ It was a mild joke about the lead female character. Because she had come up through the police department and through the FBI…she needed a breast reduction to fit into the kevlar vest,” Zucker said.

“It was pure oatmeal, so mild,” he said. “Not one of our funniest things, but this was too much. I thought, ‘If this was the criteria for it, we’re in big trouble.’”

In speaking of the past, he said, “We went where the laughs were…We never worried about any of this stuff with the Naked Gun or Scary Movie films.”

Zucker honed his comedic skills in the 1980s and 90s with movies like “The Kentucky Fried Movie” (1977), “Airplane!” (1980), “Top Secret” (1984), “Ruthless People” (1986), “The Naked Gun” (1988), “The Naked Gun 2½: The Smell of Fear” (1991) and BASEketball” (1998).

He added his 21st Century contributions “Scary Movie 3” in 2003 and its sequel “Scary Movie 4” in 2006.

Many of the films that he was involved with are now classics and continue to attract appreciative audiences and younger movie fans.

He is often asked whether his most iconic film could be made today.

“When we do screenings of ‘Airplane!’ we get the question if we could do ‘Airplane!’ today,” he said. “The first thing I could think of was, ‘Sure, just without the jokes.’”

According to Zucker, although in the current comedy climate freedom may be taking a hit, the future actually looks bright.

“Comedy is in trouble, of course, but I think it’s going to come back,” he said. “There’s a pendulum, and the pendulum will swing back. I’d like to see comedy filmmakers do comedies without fear.”

Zucker has gone against the grain in liberal Hollywood. He has even worked on political ads for the GOP and directed a political parody film at the expense of Michael Moore, titled “An American Carol” (2008).

Charmingly, he is a huge fan of Davy Crockett. He once made a cameo appearance dressed as Crockett in “The Naked Gun 2½.” As a matter of fact, one of his dream projects is a Crockett biopic. He also hosted a “Davy Crockett Rifle Frolic” at his ranch back in the 1990s. And he decided to write some additional verses to the celebrated song “The Ballad of Davy Crockett.”

Regarding his faith, he was asked by the BBC some years ago whether he believes in God.

His answer was exquisite.

“Oh yeah, I believe in God,” he replied. “I think there’s much more evidence that there is a God than that there isn’t. I don’t believe that Mother Teresa and Hitler go to the same place. I believe in justice, maybe not in this life, but there has to be justice.”

In addition to justice, no doubt there’s laughter too.

As C.S. Lewis put it, “Joy is the serious business of Heaven.”

How Jimmy Kimmel Became a Democrat Hack

A lot of folks have been wondering what’s up with Jimmy Kimmel. The late-night comic has become more and more vicious in his politics and extreme in his one-sided humor.

As a result, the ratings for his TV show have really taken a hit.

Here’s a theory about how Jimmy’s comedy got wrecked and how his once-popular program fell into a rating’s ditch.

James Christian Kimmel was raised a Catholic. In his youth, he was fervent enough in his faith to step forward and serve at Mass as an altar boy.

Now, both in his politics and joke delivery, he appears to back every left-wing narrative that the dominant media and reigning powers-that-be are pitching, including a load of Dem-devised policies antithetical to his own faith heritage.

As host and executive producer of “Jimmy Kimmel Live,” he has consistently been serving as sort of a polar opposite altar boy for the Democratic Party.

He recently admitted that using so much of his show to aim insults at former President Donald Trump had resulted in his audience being cut in half over the last several years.

He also revealed that ABC is less than pleased with the loss in ratings.

In an interview with the Naked Lunch podcast, he spoke about the shrinking number of viewers, telling hosts Phil Rosenthal and David Wild, “I [Kimmel] have lost half of my fan[base], maybe more than that.”

“Ten years ago, among Republicans, I was the most popular talk show host, at least according to the research that they did,” he said.

He also shared that the network had discussed the idea of easing up on the constant barrage of Trump barbs. But according to Jimmy, he responded to the ABC heads by offering to leave the show rather than moderate his attacks.

“If you want somebody else to host the show, that’s fine, that’s okay with me. I’m just not going to do it like that,” he apparently said. He also claimed that the network reluctantly conceded.

The truth is he has been a Republican basher for as long as he has been a late-night host. Most recently, he was featured in a nasty partisan campaign ad, where he attacked the Republican who is running for the U.S. Senate in the state of Nevada, Adam Laxalt.

A glance at Jimmy’s past provides insight into the possible rationale for his unwavering allegiance to radical left-wing political and cultural ideology.

Prior to becoming the woke host of “Jimmy Kimmel Live,” he was the unwoke co-host of Comedy Central’s “The Man Show.”

When “The Man Show” first debuted in 1999, he accurately referred to the program as “a joyous celebration of chauvinism.”

The show began with a MeToo-violating theme song that included accompanying footage of a male using a leaf blower to remove a woman’s dress.

The program also had a regular segment in which The Man on the Street, namely Jimmy, recruited female volunteers to participate in a supposed game called “Guess What’s in My Pants.”

“I’ve stuffed something in my pants,” Kimmel said, explaining that “you’re allowed to feel around on the outside…You’ll have 10 seconds to then guess what is in my pants.”

Other skits on the show degraded women through use of vulgar props, partial nudity, and highly suggestive language.

In a sketch that degraded African-American individuals, prior to taking to the stage Jimmy applied a dark shade of makeup to his face for a supposed comedy effect.

By committing the above cultural violations over the years, he has broken a whole host of woke rulebook provisions, many of which were memorialized on video.

Maybe he has been trying to do penance as it relates to his newfound woke religion. Or maybe his kowtowing to the left has been the means in which he has avoided the cancellation of his prized television show and reputation.

In any event, although things seemed to have worked for him up until now, the past has a funny way of catching up with a person.

Or in Jimmy’s case, maybe a not-so-funny way.