Democrats and Media Allies Stoke Coronavirus Fears

mainstream-media

As the saying goes, “If it bleeds it leads.”

It has been this way across history for the dominant media of the day.

In their endless quest for the most compelling stories, natural disasters, widespread tragedy, political intrigue, criminal conduct, and the like have routinely provided the news and entertainment story fodder.

However, today’s times are unlike any that our country has previously experienced. This is mainly due to the fact that the dominant news and entertainment media have undergone a dramatic change in form and substance. The info-tainment industries have actually devolved in a way never anticipated, and unfortunately they have become an apparatus of one political party in particular, the Democratic Party.

In relation to the current reigning story, COVID-19, commonly referred to as the coronavirus, the Democrats and their news and entertainment cohorts have been working overtime to ratchet up the levels of public anxiety and alarm.

No doubt both the Democrats’ rhetoric and the media coverage of the coronavirus outbreak have grown increasingly duplicitous. Unfortunately, this is diametrically opposed to what is needed for our society to keep things in proper perspective, remain productive, and maintain a healthy outlook.

It is an axiom that when something poses a risk to the population, dissemination of accurate and objective information is key to reaching a solution. Presently, however, a kind of hysteria surrounding the coronavirus has been generated by partisan news media that have the ultimate goal of bringing down the approval ratings of President Donald Trump.

Democrats across the left-leaning spectrum and their willing media accomplices have politicized the current health-related issue to a sufficient degree that susceptible individuals have been driven into a state of uncertainty about their personal health and that of their families.

Such confusion about one’s personal circumstances may oftentimes lead to feelings of fear and apprehension that are not easily remedied even when the truth emerges.

With full knowledge that the public would likely overreact to exaggerated reporting, much of the news media have amplified the scare factor of the coronavirus story, creating a distorted perception in the minds of the public. The 24-hour cable news cycle and the social media have been working in conjunction to reinforce the misleading message.

Fear mongering by the left-leaning media is nothing new. The difference this time around, though, is that the media have abandoned all pretense of conveying factual information. They seem to have adopted a single rule with which to measure a publication’s worthiness: Will the “story” hurt President Trump? If the answer is yes, run with it.

Anything that can be blamed on the president will be.

Case in point: The U.S. newspaper of record, the New York Times, published a headline in its op-ed section that read, “Let’s call it Trump virus. If you’re feeling awful, you know who to blame.”

At a recent rally, President Trump brought up the way in which the coronavirus has been publicly discussed, highlighting a particular focus on an attempt by Democrats to massage the public psyche.

“Now, the Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus…” Trump told the crowd.

The president then spoke about an individual who had suggested that the Democrats were perpetrating a hoax similar to the now-discredited Russia collusion narrative.

“One of my people came up to me and said, ‘Mr. President, they tried to beat you on Russia, Russia, Russia…they tried the impeachment hoax… they tried it over and over and they’ve been doing it since you got in…this is their new hoax.’”

When looked at in context, one should logically conclude that President Trump was referring to the Democrat and media attempts to accuse the administration of mishandling the response to the coronavirus. Rarely relying on logic, the left instead proceeded to mischaracterize his comment, taking aim directly at the word “hoax.”

Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank tweeted, “Remember this moment: Trump in South Carolina just called the coronavirus a hoax.”

Ken Dilanian, a correspondent for NBC News, used his Twitter account to perpetuate the falsehood by posting, “Trump calls coronavirus Democrats’ ‘new hoax.’”

Other news outlets used distorted and misleading headlines to convey the notion that the president, shortly after creating a task force to deal with the coronavirus, called the virus itself a “hoax.”

Democrat House member Ted Lieu tweeted, “Dear @realDonaldTrump: I hope you apologize for using the term ‘new hoax’ in connection with the #coronavirus outbreak.”

Democrat presidential candidates Joe Biden, Mike Bloomberg, and recent exiter Pete Buttigieg jumped in to repeat the lie.

The truth is no action that the president would have taken to respond to the coronavirus would have satisfied Democrats or the media.

Interestingly, ignored by the same partisan figures are the hundreds of thousands of lives lost each year due to tuberculosis and AIDS, as well as the tens of thousands who die because of the flu.

Another truth nugget is that our country has an amazing track record of dealing with the risk of contagious diseases. Ebola, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) were all handled with skill and expertise and were significantly contained.

When the facts are fully known, expect the U.S. response to the coronavirus to be successful.

Watch also for the doomsday predictions given by Democrat politicians and left-leaning media to end up on top of a trash heap of failed hoaxes.

‘Christianity Today’ Becomes a Tool of the Left

billy-and-franklin-graham

Although a lot of people link “Christianity Today” with evangelical Christian ideology, the magazine’s editor, Mark Galli, recently nixed that idea with a click of his keyboard.

Galli penned a column that appeared to be written with the goal in mind of putting grins on the faces of leftists and garnering gobs of attention from the Trump-hating faction of the media.

Whether the above stated goal was mapped out or not, the end result was the same. The magazine’s image took a hit, the president was unfairly maligned, and the liberal media ate it all up.

Galli used the pages of the magazine, which happened to be founded by the late legendary preacher extraordinaire Billy Graham, to call for the removal of President Trump from office.

As his days with the magazine are on the wane, the liberal-minded editor put forth a constitutionally vapid case with an apparent purpose of reversing the results of the 2016 presidential election. Galli argued for the president’s removal because of behavior that he chooses to characterize as immoral.

What Galli apparently doesn’t understand is that the U.S. Constitution sets forth a specific and elevated standard in order for the nation’s chief executive to be removed, not just a mere allegation of subjectively questionable behavior.

Because Galli’s publication was originally founded by Reverend Graham, the article referenced the evangelist. It is fitting that Graham’s son, Franklin, who now leads the ministry that his father envisioned and brought to fruition, was one of the first to comment on Galli’s opinion piece.

In a compelling social media post, Franklin let the world know that his dad both “believed in” and “voted for” President Trump.

“… they invoked my father’s name, so I felt I should respond. Yes, @BillyGraham founded Christianity Today; but no, he would not agree w/ their piece. He’d be disappointed,” Franklin stated.

Other leading evangelicals joined in with the countering of Galli’s assertions.

Jerry Falwell Jr. of Liberty University stated that “Christianity Today” has been “unmasked” as part of what he called the “liberal evangelicals who have preached social gospel for decades.”

In an appearance on Fox News, Faith and Freedom Coalition Chairman Ralph Reed said of the magazine, “You cannot imagine a publication more out of step with the faith community that it once represented.”

And President Trump himself joined in with a comment, calling the publication “a far left magazine” and tweeting that Christians are not very likely to be “looking for Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, or those of the socialist/communist bent, to guard their religion.”

When they found out that an ostensible spokesperson for evangelical Christians essentially used Democratic Party talking points to go after the president, the left-leaning media were filled with delight. Galli was predictably offered numerous media spots.

Guesting on NPR’s Morning Edition turned out to be a perfect venue in which to double down on his attacks on the president while letting loose with some additional jabs that seemed tailor-made for a CNN audition.

Galli, of course, repeated his call to negate the choice of America’s voters, but this time came up with other justifications, claiming that the president is in “psychological and moral confusion.”

As propagandists are prone to do, Galli used highly manipulative and corrosive language that is designed to plant negative seeds and is deliberately crafted to poison the minds of potential voters. He compared the president to a physically abusive husband and then left the notion there to lie.

During his appearance, Galli denied that his publication is left-leaning. But the truth is, he and his magazine don’t even come close to being objective.

On February 20, 2015, “Christianity Today” featured a commentary written by none other than Galli himself, titled “Amnesty is Not a Dirty Word.” The main assertion of the piece was that “…the one thing we Christians especially should not run from is any action accused of offering ‘amnesty.’”

In his article, Galli refers to the Evangelical Immigration Table (EIT), a group that has received financing from the George Soros-backed National Immigration Forum.

An article published in the November 2019 magazine, titled “Another Way for Immigration Reform? How Evangelicals Can Help Lead It,” is highly critical of the president’s approach to securing the border. Conversely, it advocates for policies that are consistent with the president’s political opponents. The author of the article is Matthew Soerens, the national coordinator for the aforementioned EIT.

Although it is unlikely that “Christianity Today” will be able to get many of its readers to return to the publication, a name change might help to attract a new crop of subscribers.

“Un-Christianity Today” might do the trick.

U.S. Leftists Ignore UK Elections

U.S. President Donald Trump shakes hands with British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson as they take part in a session on reforming the United Nations at U.N. Headquarters in New York

The recent landslide election triumph of Britain’s Prime Minister Boris Johnson may prove to be an accurate predictor of what is likely to happen in U.S. elections come 2020.

The same hatred that has held Democrats in its bitter grip since President Donald Trump first took to the political stage is the same rage that is likely to blind them to the lesson that is there in the UK election results.

Prime Minister Johnson’s electoral victory resulted in the largest majority in the British Parliament since Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher held office.

Conversely, Johnson’s adversary, Jeremy Corbyn, managed to drag his Labour Party to its lowest levels since the 1930s. The conservative Tories won 365 seats in Parliament’s lower chamber, with Labour gaining a mere 203.

Labour was left shell-shocked after a night that saw once safe seats in working class areas jump to the conservative side of the spectrum. Such a profound change to the political landscape would have been unthinkable just a few short years ago.

Interestingly, the place with which we share a common language, culture, and history currently has a political climate that is remarkably similar to the one that is occurring in the U.S. In both places, there is a seemingly perpetual struggle that exists between globalist elites who embrace trans-national institutions and national populism that is aligned with working class citizens who are trying to navigate the waters of the current economic reality.

Political occurrences in the U.S. and across the pond appear to run jointly at times. In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan and Prime Minister Thatcher strove together in fierce opposition to communism. The 1990s saw President Bill Clinton and Prime Minister Tony Blair hike the “Third Way” road together of supposed middle ground politics. And in 2016, the political earthquake election of President Trump caused comparable seismic waves to that of Britain’s prior Brexit vote.

It then comes as little surprise to the politically and culturally astute that the right in both countries seeks border integrity, individual empowerment, fewer regulations, lower taxes, and innovative approaches to international trade, thereby favoring the nation state.

The left in both countries, on the other hand, has a preference for multilateral international organizations, embraces ever-expanding government, elevates open borders, is expert in crafting draconian regulations, and is endlessly preaching about the supposed environmental doomsday that is to come.

Corbyn campaigned on a set of extreme left-wing policies that sound eerily similar to the current crop of Democrats that are seeking the presidential nomination. Corbyn would have increased government spending to gargantuan amounts, ballooning the public sector. During his first 100 days in office, Corbyn promised to nationalize utilities, give 10 percent of corporate stock in companies to workers, and implement a 32-hour work week.

His planned policy solutions were almost in lockstep with the so-called democratic socialism offered by Democrat presidential wannabes Senators Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).

A couple of their fellow Democrat opponents attempted to capitalize on the UK results. At a fundraiser, former Vice President Joe Biden referenced Johnson’s victory, saying, “Look what happens when the Labour Party moves so, so far to the left. It comes up with ideas that are not able to be contained within a rational basis quickly.”

And former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg used his Twitter account to declare that “Jeremy Corbyn’s catastrophic showing in the U.K. is a clear warning: We need a Democratic nominee who can defeat Donald Trump by running a campaign that appeals to Americans across our divides.”

Much like their denial after President Trump’s watershed victory, the left in America cannot accept the results of the UK election either. Leftists are already following the same pattern of rationalization, falsification, and resistance that was exhibited in 2016 and thereafter.

Michael Tomasky of the Daily Beast characterizes Corbyn as someone who was “never suited to be a national leader of a major political party in a major industrial democracy,” adding that he “was an ineffectual backbencher and should have remained so.”

Others such as Kate Aronoff, a senior fellow at Data for Progress, which is a progressive U.S. think tank, dismiss Johnson’s massive win by claiming that it was only about Brexit. Aronoff used the Guardian to explain that, in her assessment, “the UK election was ultimately an election about Brexit, and Brexit won. There’s no clean analogue to that in the US.”

Eric Levitz of the New Yorker Magazine rationalizes that Sanders’s “political vision is less radical than Corbyn’s, particularly on foreign policy.”

Another Guardian writer, Cas Mudde, posits, “Centrists say this is proof Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren can’t win. They are wrong.”

Two infamous names, Fusion GPS’s Glen Simpson and “dossier” author Christopher Steele recently surfaced to precondition the UK public in a virtual re-run of the debunked narrative of 2016.

Even before the electorate in the UK had cast a single vote, Simpson and Peter Fritsch wrote in an editorial that appeared in the Guardian that Russia was the reason Prime Minister Johnson won.

The article actually urged the British government to launch a Mueller-style investigation into Russian interference in the UK elections, claiming, “The British political system has become thoroughly compromised by Russian influence.”

Weeks earlier the Guardian had drudged up yet another so-called dossier derived from an “analysis from Britain’s intelligence agencies, as well as third-party experts such as the former MI6 officer Christopher Steele…”

It seems as though the American left, lost in its impeachment obsession, is calloused to the growing disgust and anger on the part of the public on both sides of the Atlantic.

Why CrowdStrike May Be the Real Reason for the Impeachment Charade

pelosi_impeachment_trump

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What we have here is an impeachment defense.

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

Kanye West’s Music Gets Born Again

gettyimages-509641192-1548161305

Kanye West’s latest career move may come as a shock to some. To others, it offers a blessing.

Rapper, singer, songwriter, record producer, entrepreneur, and fashion designer—these are just a few of the titles to which Kanye lays claim across a wide ranging career.

In his music journey, he oftentimes ventured out onto stylistic change territory. But his upcoming release, which was recently revealed to the public in a sneak preview on Instagram, courtesy of his reality show star wife, Kim Kardashian, Kanye appears to grab hold of his faith to share with the world.

A Bible, which is opened to the book of Psalms, appears in a photo that Kim posted. Adjacent to the Good Book is a list of songs written in a notebook. At the top of the page is the album title “Jesus Is King,” with the names of tunes listed immediately below. The songs have Christian-themed titles that include “Garden,” “Selah,” “God Is,” “Baptized,” “Hands On,” “Sunday,” and “Sweet Jesus.”

Words and phrases, which appear to be lyric ideas written on a notepad with the phrase “He will defend,” are seen immediately above the words “kingdom,” “lion,” and “fire.” At the bottom of the page the date September 27th appears, indicating the album’s release date.

Just to make sure her Instagram followers received the explicit message that Kanye is close to dropping a Christian album, Kim captioned her post with a praying hands emoji that followed the release date.

Christians have wondered about Kanye’s faith over the years, especially due to his use of the nickname “Yeezus.” He has utilized Christian themes in his music as far back as 2004, with a tune titled “Jesus Walks.” After the success of the song, he was quoted by the New York Times as saying, “I will say that I’m spiritual. I have accepted Jesus as my Savior. And I will say that I fall short every day.”

In 2014 Kanye referred to himself as a Christian during one of his concerts, and again in a January 2019 Twitter post.

Kim was actually educated in Christian schools of both the Presbyterian and Roman Catholic denominations. “We don’t share it much, but we’re really religious,” she told Vogue.

“We start our day with a group chat with a Bible verse from my mom, and everyone chimes in on the meaning of it. We are very Christian—and our work ethic and our discipline comes from so many years at Catholic school,” Kim shared.

Kim’s father, Robert Kardashian, was Christian Armenian. In April 2015, Kim and Kanye traveled to the Armenian Quarter of the Old City in Jerusalem to have their daughter North baptized in the Armenian Apostolic Church at the Cathedral of St. James.

Kanye’s statements about his faith have become more explicit, giving testimony and signaling a willingness to share his Christianity. Nicki Minaj recently said on an Apple Music radio broadcast that Kanye had told her he has, in Christian terms, been “born again,” revealing to his female rap colleague that he had turned his life in a different direction.

“Sometimes in the music business, we think that other artists don’t believe in God or aren’t spiritual as we are…because I was just with Kanye, and he told me he’s a born-again Christian now,” Minaj said.

Kanye revealed to Minaj that his religious point of view fundamentally changed after a crisis in his life back in 2016. He discussed in the most recent issue of Forbes magazine the ordeal in which hospitalization required him to cancel his tour. The subject of the rapper’s faith was a prominent part of the magazine interview.

After being asked how he managed to come out of that challenging period in which he had been diagnosed as having bipolar disorder, Kanye explained that he had made it through by “being in service to Christ,” conducting himself in what he referred to as “radical obedience.”

Religious conviction also played a role in the growth of Kanye’s Athletic Shoe entity, Yeezy sneakers. A few years ago he was $53 million in debt and in need of finances to fund his innovative ideas. His shoe concern is expected to take in $1.5 billion in annual sales this year, according to Forbes, with Kanye owning 100% of the business.

“I’m just blessed through the grace of God to go from tweeting at Mark Zuckerberg,” Kanye said. He was referring to having asked the Facebook founder for $1 billion in investment funding.

This year Kanye initiated what he calls “Sunday Service” meetings, which are weekly gatherings for family and celebrity friends to fellowship and sing Christian-themed music together.

Kanye’s gatherings have looked and sounded more and more like church services. In fact, Kanye and Kim arranged for the cleric who conducted their wedding, Pastor Rich Wilkerson Jr., to preach a sermon there.

“I had the idea of making a church before but I really was sketching it out. Then in 2019, I was like I’m not letting a Sunday go by without making this,” West said on the season finale of “Keeping Up With the Kardashians.”

With a new Christian album and what, in essence, is a church, Kanye may have taken on the mantle of rap minister of the gospel.

May the world be blessed by the born again West.

Hollywood Stars of Tomorrow May Be Replaced by Actors of the Digital Kind

ethics-digital-actors-3

The advent of robots that are able to sub-in for many of the job positions that human beings currently hold has altered an economic calculus within our society and an important stability measure as well.

Those who enjoy the status of being gainfully employed and those who dream of limitless future career possibilities are being forced to make some serious adjustments to their individual life plans.

A future in which robot employees replace the human kind has thus far been seen in the food service, manufacturing, and financial industries.

Interestingly, though, just like the rest of us Hollywood presently finds itself in a stare-down with the Brave New World of tomorrow. A similar form of technology to the one that is being applied to the overall labor market is rapidly advancing in the world of entertainment, and the same dynamics are present. Consequently, realistically threatened is one occupational position in particular, that of the Hollywood actor.

Recent advances in digital effects, combined with artificial intelligence, are bringing into reality the all digital actor, i.e., a complete and convincing digital reproduction of a real life human actor.

Similar tech-based techniques have been used to bring about a return to the small and big screen the images of actors who are no longer with us. A digital version of Peter Cushing  was used to reprise his role in the Star Wars film “Rogue One.”

It is becoming more and more routine to scan the face and body of an actor prior to starting a project, so that a digital stunt double can be used, if necessary, as a stand-in for action scenes.

This year, for the entire length of the film, the major studio movie release “Alita: Battle Angel” utilized a computer-generated actor to play the central role of a cyborg.

Two major fall releases, “Gemini Man” and “The Irishman,” will use de-aging digital effects to create younger versions of the stars of the films. The two films are examples of a new actuality in Hollywood, where actors can portray a character of any age, notwithstanding their own individual birthdays.

“Gemini Man” star Will Smith, who is now 50-years-old, recently explained his new film’s plot to the entertainment press. The actor is depicted in the movie as battling against a younger clone of himself. The technology allowed the creation of a digital double of Smith that has the ability to act in scenes simultaneously with the star.

“There’s a completely digital 20-year-old version of myself that can make movies now,” Smith shared with reporters.

Another fall movie, “The Irishman,” features 75-year-old Robert De Niro and 79-year old Al Pacino playing labor union leader Frank Sheeran and union activist Jimmy Hoffa, respectively. Both actors appear in the film at disparately different ages in their lives via the use of digital de-aging effects.

The same technology created younger versions of actors Michael Douglas and Michelle Pfeiffer in “Ant-Man” and “The Wasp,” Samuel L. Jackson in “Captain Marvel,” and Anthony Hopkins in the first season of “Westworld.”

At a time when Hollywood studios routinely focus on the franchise rather than the individual star, and when so much of production is being brought to fruition via computer graphics, it is logical that in the future many entertainment executives will use logistic and financial reasoning to pursue a fully computer generated production, including the outright replacement of live actors themselves.

Research in the methodology and artistic refinement of digitally duplicating human beings is rapidly advancing. A studio specializing in digital humans, Digital Domain, created the character Thanos for the film “Infinity War,” and has been doing extensive research and development in a division aptly called the Digital Human Group.

The idea of non-human actors presents distinct advantages for modern-day filmmakers who would love to see a set free from tiresome retakes, bloated budgets, and demanding divas.

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.