Clint Eastwood’s Latest Film Tells Richard Jewell’s Tragic Story

clint-eastwood-directing

Like so many of the characters he portrays on the big screen, the Clint Eastwood of real life is an unapologetic iconoclast who refuses to conform to the politically correct ideology of Hollywood.

In deciding on the location for his latest film, Clint chose the state of Georgia, ignoring the many calls by celebrity peers to boycott the state because of its passage of life affirming “heartbeat” legislation. The legislative measure prohibits abortions after a baby’s heartbeat can be detected.

Alyssa Milano, Milla Jovovich, and Busy Philipps, among others, have spoken out against the bill. Major studios that film in Georgia, including Netflix, Disney, and AMC, have indicated that they may move their productions out of the state.

Clint refused to buy into it. His latest cinematic project, “The Ballad of Richard Jewell,” was filmed in Georgia because that happens to be where the real life events that are portrayed in the movie took place.

Jewell’s story is a case study in ethics from which today’s media could learn a great deal. During the summer Olympics in July of 1996, security guard Jewell was an actual whistleblower who alerted the Georgia Bureau of Investigation that a backpack, which was in the vicinity, contained a pipe bomb.

As a result of Jewell’s warning, numerous attendees were able to escape the impending explosion. Before the blast occurred, Jewell was able to assist law enforcement in getting many folks out of harm’s way. Sadly, the detonation of the bomb did take one person’s life and injure 111 others.

Initially, news reports portrayed Jewell in heroic terms, but the accolades would be short-lived. Three days after the tragic incident, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution published a piece titled “FBI Suspects Hero Guard May Have Planted Bomb.”

The article characterized Jewell as an individual who fit “the profile of a lone bomber.”

CNN reported on details from the Journal-Constitution article, and numerous news outlets followed suit. So-called experts described Jewell as someone who possessed the requisite psychological makeup to have perpetrated the heinous act.

The hero became the prime suspect. At a press conference called by her son’s lawyers, his mother, Barbara Jewell, pleaded with then-President Clinton to intervene and exonerate her son.

“My son has no life . . . He is a prisoner in my home,’’ the Journal-Constitution quoted the mother as saying, before she broke down in tears.

The Clinton White House refused to comment, and then-Attorney General Janet Reno refused to exonerate Jewell. He was not charged with a crime, yet his reputation was in tatters. Two victims of the bombing filed civil lawsuits against him. Finally, 90 days after the bombing, authorities cleared him. The actual bomber, Eric Rudolph, later confessed to the crime.

Following his exoneration, Jewell filed several defamation lawsuits against media outlets, which he claimed had reported in a manner that had severely harmed his reputation.

L. Lin Wood, the lead lawyer in all of Jewell’s libel cases, is the same attorney who is now representing Nick Sandmann of the Covington Catholic High School.

Of particular interest to places where journalism is taught is the case against NBC News. The lawsuit centers around the following statement, which was made by then-anchor Tom Brokaw while he was on the air: “The speculation is that the FBI is close to making the case. They probably have enough to arrest him [Jewell] right now, probably enough to prosecute him, but you always want to have enough to convict him as well. There are still some holes in this case.”

As is common in media lawsuits, NBC stood by its story; however, the network agreed to settle the matter for $500,000.

Additionally, both the New York Post and CNN settled with Jewell for undisclosed amounts.

Up until his death in 2007 (at a mere 44 years of age), Jewell was known to have regularly placed a rose at Centennial Olympic Park. He laid the flower at the site where Alice Hawthorne, the sole fatality, lost her life.

Reportedly, Jewell could never get over what an irresponsible and reckless media did to his personal reputation and his life.

The story line of the film is made to order for Eastwood’s filmmaking style. Paul Walter Hauser portrays Jewell, Sam Rockwell plays Jewell’s lawyer, and actors Kathy Bates, Olivia Wilde, and Jon Hamm are included in the cast.

After seeing an early edit of the movie, Warner Bros. was impressed enough to schedule the release date of “The Ballad of Richard Jewell” for December 13, with optimum timing for potential award nominations for the Oscar-winning director’s latest work.

As the final version of Clint’s film will hopefully underscore, it is the saddest of commentaries that 1996’s wrongheaded and biased media will be said to have had more integrity than today’s media can lay claim to.

Katy Perry’s #HeToo Problem

katy-perry-benjamin-glaze-american-idol-kiss

Just as our country continues to grapple with the serious issues that have been brought to light as a result of efforts on the part of individuals, groups, and movements such as #MeToo and #Time’sUp, along comes an unexpected twist to the societal plotline.

Alleged incidents involving sexual misconduct by one very famous celebrity have Hollywood once again in a social conscious quandary. Mega star Katy Perry is currently suffering through an unfortunate “life imitates art” moment related to her hit song “I Kissed a Girl.”

The lyrics of the song seem to have been a kind of foreshadowing of Perry’s current predicament.

“I got so brave, drink in hand
Lost my discretion…

It felt so wrong
It felt so right
Don’t mean I’m in love tonight

I kissed a girl and I liked it…”

In a real life replay of the lyrical content, the recipient of Katy’s kiss unfortunately didn’t.

Russian journalist and television presenter Tina Kandelaki accused Perry of making non-consensual touches and other advances upon her while Perry was allegedly intoxicated; this according to the New York Post’s Page Six.

Kandelaki told a Russian newspaper that when the two were in attendance at the same private party, a “pretty tipsy” Perry chose Kandelaki “as an object for the manifestation of her passion.”

Kandelaki indicated that, due to her strength training, she had “managed to fight back…and Katy instantly found a new victim for kisses, hugs and dirty dances.”

In a separate incident, male model Josh Kloss has alleged that, while at a party in which the two were in attendance, Perry exposed to her friends Kloss’s private parts, and it was done without having had obtained his consent.

Kloss, who appeared in the 2010 music video for Perry’s song “Teenage Dream,” posted allegations on his Instagram account that Perry, during a party at which they were both gathered, had lowered his pants in front of her friends.

Kloss is evidently troubled by what he sees as a double standard with regard to Perry as a result of her gender.

“Can you imagine how pathetic and embarrassed I felt?” Kloss wrote in one of his posts.

The incident begs the question, What if Katy Perry were a man? The double standard seems to be fairly self-evident.

Men both in and out of Hollywood circles have been accused of similar behavior, and the resultant consequences, which individuals have had to endure, have been swift in arrival and unequivocal in nature.

It is obvious to many that if Perry were of the male gender, the media would have already pronounced her guilty, her accusers would have been instantly believed, her career would have abruptly ended, and she would be considered a social media pariah.

“I just say this now because our culture is set on proving [that] men of power are perverse. But females with power are just as disgusting,” Kloss wrote.

No doubt Perry has amassed a great degree of power as a result of her elevated celebrity status and Hollywood success. In contrast, a male celebrity of equal stature that engages in behavior that falls in the category of sexual harassment would be held accountable by peers, press, and the public alike.

Interestingly, this isn’t the first time that Perry has been accused of sexually inappropriate behavior. Back in 2018, when acting in her capacity as a judge on “American Idol,” Perry generated press coverage for her flagrant flirting with male contestants.

On one occasion in her tenure on the reality show, Perry delivered an on-camera kiss to 19-year-old contestant Benjamin Glaze without having obtained his consent.

What made the kiss particularly insensitive to the point of being cruel was the fact that she acted in the manner in which she did after Glaze mentioned that he had never been kissed before, and shared that he was saving that special moment for a time when he was in a relationship.

Perry essentially tricked Glaze by making him think that he was about to place a kiss on the singer’s cheek. But then Perry quickly turned her head at the last moment, and the young man was a shocked recipient of an unexpected and undesired kiss on the lips from Perry.

One can only imagine how different the reaction would have been had a male acting in Katy’s role stolen life’s first kiss from a young 19-year-old woman.

In 2017 Perry was also caught on-camera taking hold of the bottom of singer Shawn Mendes when he was still a mere teenager.

Perry at one time stated that she was not a feminist, but she later changed her mind and is now a self-described part of the feminist movement. Earlier in the year alongside Anita Hill, Perry was given a Lifetime Achievement in Feminism award by the Diane Von Furstenberg Awards.

If the above described allegations prove to be credible, hypocrisy may not be the only issue that Perry will have to face.

The Agenda-laden Reboot of ‘Party of Five’

image

That Hollywood would be walking hand-in-hand with the Democratic Party in an effort to shape the mindset of the culture-at-large is nothing new.

However, the idea that entertainment products would have morphed into super-sized mallets that would then be used to hammer left-wing agendas into folks’ heads is.

The routine insertion into entertainment content by Hollywood of “woke” themes and characters is clearly illustrated in a highly altered supposed reboot of a previous 1990’s television show, “Party of Five.”

The original “Party of Five” ran from 1994 to 2000 and starred Neve Campbell, Scott Wolf, Matthew Fox, and Lacey Chabert. The series dealt with the Salinger family’s five children, who were forced to fend for themselves after their parents were killed in an accident by a drunk driver.

Hollywood’s updated version, which airs on the Disney-owned cable network Freeform, has none of the original characters and is missing a majority of the themes that were present in the initial “Party of Five.”

The redesigned show features a Mexican family in which sibling children are forced into orphan-hood when their mom and dad are deported.

In reality, the series is not actually a reboot but rather a radical re-imagining that utilizes one of the favorite memes of the left.

The original show’s setting was San Francisco, and it had a run of six seasons. It aired on Fox and helped to launch the careers of its cast, including one particular co-star, Jennifer Love Hewitt.

Despite its having been on the air more than two decades ago, the original show features themes that to this day continue to resonate with viewers.

Even though the series was categorized as one designed to attract teens, the issues with which the Salinger family had to deal included a character’s battle with cancer, another character’s battle with alcoholism, a young woman who was a victim of domestic violence, and naturally the show’s primary focus of the children being minus parental figures.

Because the series had relatively low ratings in its first and second seasons, the speculation at the time was that it might not be renewed. However, after it won the 1996 Golden Globe Award for Best Television Series in the drama category, its ratings and popularity grew for most of the remainder of the show.

Original creators Chris Keyser and Amy Lippman are spearheading the storytelling in the revised version, although the two showrunners have seen fit to abandon the original characters and plot line.

Lippman told The Associated Press that she and Keyser had turned down previous offers to bring the show back over concerns that they did not want to incorporate the same story line with new actors. But Lippman also indicated that the pair had changed their minds after reading front-page stories about children being separated from their parents.

“We have told this story before but it was imaginary,” Lippman said. “Now it’s actually a story that is playing out all over the country.”

“In the previous show, we didn’t need to be specific to a culture or a political climate,” Lippman added. “This family is very concerned about [its] status.”

Lippman noted that the show hired a mostly Latino writing staff.

A trailer was recently released that spotlights the deportation and immigration story line featuring five Hispanic children who struggle to survive following their parents’ deportation to Mexico.

The trailer shows the parents being separated from their children, opening with an inflammatory scene that shows the family patriarch being asked for his papers and being led out of a restaurant by government law enforcement.

Although the first episode’s airing has yet to be announced, reports indicate that it will hit the airwaves in late 2019, just in time for the pre-election mind manipulation of the public.

Corporate Virtue Signaling

screen-shot-2019-07-02-at-3.58.24-pm-800x350

Colin Kaepernick recently voiced his complaints to Nike executives about the company’s plans to release patriotic themed sneakers that featured a Betsy Ross flag on the back portion of the shoes.

The sports apparel firm responded to the former NFL quarterback’s politically correct ridiculousness with complete capitulation and proceeded to pull the Air Max 1 USA shoe from the market.

Nike actually has a history of pandering to the left, which started well before the recent sneaker fiasco took place. The company offended a whole slew of its customers when it named the National Anthem-kneeling Kaepernick as the face of its formerly successful “Just Do It” campaign.

Nike is not alone in its mixing of business and politics. In truth, many of our companies have hopped on a leftist bandwagon, ushering in a “progressive” era of corporate virtue signaling.

“There’s a troubling trend among giant corporations using this wealth and power to force liberal dogma on an unwilling people. As liberal activists have lost control of the judiciary, they have turned to a different hub of power to impose their views on the rest of the country. This time it’s private power…,” Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) stated in a June speech given to his colleagues in the U.S. Senate.

The senator is correct. Corporate capitulation to liberal demands has snaked its way throughout the business world. From Left Coast entertainment companies to East Coast conglomerates, business entities have even seen fit to weigh in on individual state legislation, with top-down executive elites wielding economic power as a weapon to undermine the legitimate legislative process of our representative democracy.

One glaring example that the country lived through in 2016 was brought to the public, courtesy of the National Football League (NFL). The NFL had objected to a Georgia state bill that had at its core individual religious liberty.

The bill was characterized by the press at the time as creating legal discrimination against gay and lesbian individuals. After similar bills in Mississippi and North Carolina emerged, it prompted a letter, which was signed by 100 companies that were lobbying against the state measures. One company, PayPal, actually ended up removing 400 jobs from North Carolina in an apparent act of reprisal and display of newfound corporate political power.

The National Basketball Association moved the 2017 All-Star game out of Charlotte, North Carolina, as an expression of protest against another of the state’s laws, which required transgender individuals to use a restroom that corresponds to the gender with which they were born.

Google, Amazon, Apple, and Facebook joined with other businesses in Texas to denounce bills in the state legislature that were claimed to have had the potential to inflict harm against individuals based on their sexual preferences. An online letter was posted, which was signed by the aforementioned businesses as well as other major entities, including PayPal, Pepsi, Unilever, Salesforce, IBM, and Ben & Jerry’s.

Numerous other companies have been racing in a political direction, one that is almost always left-of-center.

This year’s Super Bowl featured a Gillette ad that denounced “toxic masculinity,” which resulted in considerable backlash from sports and non-sports fans alike. Undeterred, the shaving supply giant doubled-down in its approach with a second commercial containing the same theme.

Since the #MeToo movement expanded out from Hollywood green rooms to corporate board rooms, businesses have become more sensitive to feminist causes. When the people of Georgia, via their representatives, revised their existing abortion laws, entertainment companies, which included Disney, Netflix, and Warner Media, threatened to inflict damage on Georgia’s film production industry unless the state acceded to their prescribed liberal dictates. A full-page advertisement bearing the signatures of hundreds of business heads appeared in The New York Times, attacking the legislative legal protections for pre-born humans.

Yet, when it comes to film production sites, Hollywood’s self-absorption seems to blind it to its own hypocrisy, as companies continue to film in locales such as the United Arab Emirates, Tunisia, Jordan, etc., places in which women face far more restrictive laws than those found in the U.S.

Other examples of how the scent of politics is wafting out of some of our nation’s largest corporate headquarters include the announcement from Bank of America that it would no longer lend money to those who operate immigration detention centers and private prisons. The institution followed in the footsteps of JP Morgan Chase and Wells Fargo, which had also severed business ties with private prison operators.

Major businesses in the United States used to shy away from taking positions that might offend a segment of their potential purchasing base. Not so anymore. Like a dizzying number of other radical changes that our present culture is undergoing, the notion that corporations would be wise to remain apolitical appears to have been tossed in the graveyard of forgotten business practices.

Hollywood’s Human Rights Duplicity

17-moviepass.w700.h467

After a law was passed in Georgia to save the lives of pre-born babies with detectable heartbeats, many in Hollywood grabbed their leftist playbooks and began clamoring for a boycott of the state.

Netflix, Disney, and a smattering of Left Coast companies threatened to pull production away from Georgia if the implementation of the law began to take effect.

Allyssa Milano, who had previously called for women to boycott Georgia by means of restraint of affections, has now made a color-coded map of states deemed “most threatened,” “under threat,” or “least threatened” by pro-life legislation.

Despite the high degree of virtue signaling that has taken place regarding the issue, Hollywood continues to conduct business with foreign governments that hold abysmal human rights records.

The very same Hollywood companies that give lip service to the women empowerment movement continue to engage in an all-out quest for money from countries with dreadful women’s rights records, including Saudi Arabia, which consistently ranks in the “worst of the worst” category, according to Freedom House.

The nation of Brunei has a Sharia-based penal code, which imposes death by stoning for extramarital affairs or certain sexual acts as well as amputation of limbs for theft crimes, among other brutal penalties for criminal offenses.

Human Rights Watch states that Brunei’s Sharia law imposes “a wide range of restrictions that discriminate against women and sexual and gender minorities” and “violates freedom of expression and religion.”

Entertainment moguls continue to use the Beverly Hills Hotel for power meetings, ignoring the fact that the venue was boycotted several years ago when the owner of the hotel, the Sultan of Brunei, first decreed Sharia law.

Viktor Orbán, Hungary’s nationalist prime minister, is roundly condemned by Hollywood’s media allies on the left for his tough stand on illegal immigration, particularly when it comes to the outsized migrant population that has been flooding European countries in recent years.

The establishment media became frenzied recently when President Trump praised the Hungarian prime minister for a “tremendous job.”

“You’re respected all over Europe,” President Trump said. “Probably, like me, a little bit controversial, but that’s OK, You’ve done a good job and you’ve kept your country safe.”

For his part Orban told the press, “I would like to express that we are proud to stand together with United States on fighting against illegal migration, on terrorism, and to protect and help Christian communities all around the world.”

Vox characterized the meeting as one “between two like-minded illiberal leaders, men at the forefront of the campaign to undermine Western democracy from within.”

Vox’s statement epitomizes the worldview of liberal Hollywood. Still, many entertainment companies continue to shoot various productions in Hungary, despite differing so fundamentally with the country’s national and political ideology.

It is shockingly real that China, the most dangerous nation to America’s future, is now making decisions on what entertainment content Americans will consume, courtesy of the Hollywood companies that kowtow to the communist censors in Beijing.

Left Coast filmmakers are financing projects, partnering up with Chinese state-controlled companies, and distributing finished product in China. Hollywood firms have partnered on the production of a number of well known films, including “Mission: Impossible – Fallout” and “Venom.”

Only a small number of foreign movies are allowed into China each year. Studios are routinely permitting Chinese censors to alter themes, plots, and characters of the movies that are allowed into the country, in an effort to gain access to China’s market.

The ruling Communist Party will not allow media content that deals with religion, alcoholism, ethnic conflict, homosexuality, or any subject that might be critical of the government.

The disaster movie “2012” has a plotline in which the Chinese government rescues humanity. In the film “Gravity,” actress Sandra Bullock is able to survive in outer space via the safety provided by a Chinese Space Station. The makers of Marvel Studios’ “Doctor Strange” were evidently pressured to change a Tibetan character to a Celtic one in order to satisfy Chinese predilections about Tibet. The Academy Award winning “Call Me By Your Name” was banned in China for its depiction of homosexuality. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and Walt Disney Studios had to re-edit the films “Skyfall” and “Iron Man 3” respectively, in order to please Chinese censors.

China is now attempting to destroy the rule of law in Hong Kong with a highly dangerous extradition bill. The proposed bill recently resulted in millions of protesters taking to the streets. If implemented as law, the bill would subject the citizens of Hong Kong to the kangaroo courts of mainland China, which are known for being devoid of due process.

In truth, Hollywood has become a puppet of authoritarian rulers that suppress freedom of thought, word and deed. Meanwhile the town’s silence on the human rights records of countries around the globe is deafening as its own greed eclipses conscience.

The Clintons Partner Up with Hollywood

hillary-clinton-hollywood

Where do you go after you suffer two losses in a back-to-back bid to secure a coveted Oval Office seat? If you are a tried-and-true Democrat with a tried and true far-left following, you’re going to Hollywood!

Magically floating into your hands is that golden ticket to the place where wads of cash, advertisement endorsements, and tons of adulation await you from your like-minded friends who populate the hillside mansions of Tinseltown.

Secure enough in their apparent belief that Hollywood studios are going to roll out the red carpet, Hillary Clinton and her daughter Chelsea have put together a production company, the purpose of which is to create film and television projects.

True to what the Clintons are famous for, particularly when it comes to their Hollywood connections, Hillary and Chelsea are reportedly on a quest for money for their entertainment vehicle. Seemingly not content with having been first lady of Arkansas, New York senator, first lady of the nation, secretary of state, presidential candidate two-times-over, and best-selling author, Hillary, along with her daughter in tag, wants to “influence culture and society” via entertainment; this according to Bloomberg.

“Hillary is still very popular out here and there’s been conversations with several studios and streamers about working on projects together,” a top-tier executive told Deadline.

Reports indicate that the Clintons will focus on, not surprisingly, women. The projects will purportedly be made by women and for women, and additionally will be about women, according to Bloomberg.

Studio executives have already been contacted about financing content for the Clinton upstart company, and there’s one thing that the Clintons and Hollywood certainly have in common. That would be something affectionately known as creative accounting.

Now you may be asking yourself, What qualifications and expertise do Hillary and her daughter actually bring to the film and television production table?

Well, in 2011 Chelsea was able to obtain a position as a special correspondent for the NBC News show “Making A Difference,” which earned her an annual salary of $600,000, despite the fact that she didn’t have any credible prior reporting experience. During her three-year stint at NBC, though, she was able to provide some no doubt riveting reporting about The Clinton Foundation, and a hard-hitting interview with the Geico Gecko.

And in 2018 Hillary herself was hired to be the executive producer of Steven Spielberg’s “The Women’s Hour,” which is a TV drama that deals with women securing the right to vote. Adapted from the book titled “The Woman’s Hour: The Great Fight to Win the Vote,” the plot deals with the women’s suffrage movement and the battle over the ratification of the 19th Amendment.

Would Hollywood let political cronyism affect its choice of business partner? Perish the thought.

It could be that Hillary was haunted by that green-eyed monster when former President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle created a production company called “Higher Ground Productions,” which reportedly made a lucrative deal with Netflix. From the Clintons’ perspective, if their Hollywood friends are handing creative power and cash over to the Obamas, there must be some that could be slipped their way.

The type of content that the Clintons will supposedly be creating may be similar to the content the Obamas have in their initial slate of Netflix projects that are currently in production, which include the following:

-a children’s show for preschoolers called “Listen to Your Vegetables & Eat Your Parents”;

-a narrative film adaptation of the biography of Frederick Douglass;

-a series from the creator of “Nashville,” which is set in New York and depicts barriers faced by women and individuals of color;

-a New York Times series “Overlooked,” which focuses on obituaries of notable figures from history who were previously ignored by the press, i.e., women and minorities.

One more project the Obamas have in the making, which is so unsurprising it’s flat-out boring, is an adaptation of an anti-Trump book by Michael Lewis, titled “The Fifth Risk.” The former president and first lady’s company will additionally partner with another tech-entertainment company, Spotify, to develop podcasts presumably with more “woke” themes.

Meanwhile Hillary may have finally found the hobby that she had been looking for: Shaking down Hollywood execs in order to finance female-centric projects. Because Hollywood decision makers abandoned business principles a long time ago, she is likely to be able to obtain financing for some agenda-laden products that few, if any, will want to see.

As an added benefit from all of this, we are able to get a sneak preview of what Joe Biden will be able to do with himself after he loses.

Kanye West Stands Up for Trump’s Supporters

glc-claims-kanye-west-is-never-wearing-maga-hats-again

When it comes to Kanye West, Democrats have a lot to fear.

Bucking the trend in the entertainment industry, Kanye has shown support for President Donald Trump on a number of occasions, including one in which he made a visit to Trump Tower shortly after President Trump’s 2016 election victory.

The popular rapper, who also happens to be the husband of Kim Kardashian, appeared last year on “Saturday Night Live” and gave a speech to the audience immediately after the broadcast. Donning a trademark “Make America Great Again” red hat, he expressed his fondness for President Trump.

“They’re laughing at me. You heard them? They screamed at me. They bully me. They bullied me backstage. They said ‘Don’t go out there with that hat on,’” Kanye told the SNL audience immediately after the broadcast.

He additionally joined former NFL star Jim Brown on a visit to the Oval Office. Surrounded by the press, Kanye once again wore a red MAGA hat, and much to the chagrin of the media and the Democratic Party he gave the president a hug, which at supersonic speed trended around the globe.

When Kanye speaks, the ears of the Democratic Party perk up. African-American voters make up approximately 20 percent of the Party’s electorate, according to the 2016 primary exit polls and Pew Research Center data from 2018. Consequently, any possibility that there could be the slightest reduction in African-American support causes Dems to grow weak in the knees.

Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media breathed a collective sigh of relief, when Kanye made a late autumn announcement via Twitter back in 2018 that he was “distancing” himself from politics. However, at the start of 2019, he was back on the Trump train again. He tweeted, “Trump all day” and conveyed this message to his followers: “Just so in 2019 you know where I stand.”

Kanye also posted language that directly undermines the African-American voter turnout, which Democrat candidates need to secure their wins.

“They will not program me. Blacks are 90% Democrats. That sounds like control to me,” Kanye wrote, adding, “One of my favorite of many things about what the Trump hat represents to me is that people can’t tell me what to do because I’m black.”

Most recently, the pop icon made an appearance on David Letterman’s Netflix streamer, titled “My Next Guest Needs No Introduction,” as the first interview of the show’s second season (yet to be streamed).

According to the Daily Beast, Letterman seemed genuinely nervous about his interview with Kanye. After all, Letterman has been a constant critic of President Trump. But the rapper proceeded to shock the left-wing former late-night host by unequivocally confirming his support for President Trump, while defending the president’s supporters.

During a portion of the interview that focused on the #MeToo movement, Kanye dove right in and brought up the president’s name.

“This is like my thing with Trump,” Kanye said. “We don’t have to feel the same way, but we have the right to feel what we feel.”

When Letterman suggested that support for President Trump is potentially “hurting people who are already being hurt,” Kanye used the moment to point out that those who support and vote for Trump are “treated like enemies of America…”

Kanye asked the following question of Letterman: “Have you ever been beat up in your high school for wearing the wrong hat?”

The fact of the matter is YouTube is filled with examples of people being violently assaulted simply for wearing a MAGA hat.

When the former late-night host brought up the subject of “bullying in America,” Kanye responded, “Liberals bully people who are Trump supporters!”

Letterman asked Kanye whether he voted for Trump and with refreshing honesty he answered, “I’ve never voted in my life.”

Letterman snidely cracked, “Then you don’t have a say in this,” which elicited predictable cheering from the far left-wing audience members.

On a previous occasion, Kanye publicly acknowledged that he did not vote in 2016.

To the dismay of many Democrats there are numerous examples of individuals who did not vote for the president the first time around but are now ardent Trump supporters.

The Daily Beast calls the hour-long one-on-one with Kanye “one of the best interviews Letterman has ever conducted” and “one of the most coherent and engaging interviews Kanye has ever given.”

Kanye’s wife Kim is among the audience members of the show and is shown smiling and nodding in support of her 5-year spouse.

The new season of Letterman’s show featuring Kanye begins streaming on Netflix on May 31.