‘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.

New Immersive Experience for ‘Jumanji’ Sequel

jumanjinexttop913

As traditional movie theaters face increasing pressure to please prospective film-goers, theater chains are busy at work trying to reinvent themselves.

For a while now the movie industry as a whole has been trying to keep up with the cinematic luxuries that folks have been indulging in at home, which include larger and larger TV display screens, vibrant high-definition visuals, professional stereo sound systems, hyper-advanced digital technology, on-demand entertainment delivery, and on and on. Now that’s some pretty stiff competition.

Some venues have opted to go restaurant-style, serving food and beverages to patrons as they relax in cushy recliner seats. Others have included virtual reality enhancements that appeal to the visual, auditory, tactile, and even olfactory senses. Mist on the skin, wind in the hair, body in motion, sensory stimulation, among other effects, have taken things to the 4D level, entertainment-wise.

Hollywood and its trendy urban surroundings are now acting as a laboratory of sorts for a new movie theater technology imported from France called the Immersive Cinema Experience (ICE).

In the upcoming week, ICE will debut in Los Angeles with the release of the fantasy-adventure film “Jumanji: The Next Level,” which stars Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, Jack Black, Kevin Hart, Danny Glover, Danny DeVito, Karen Gillan, Nick Jonas, Awkwafina, Alex Wolff, Morgan Turner, Ser’Darius Blain, and Madison Iseman.

Although it will cost movie-goers an additional $6, the ICE-equipped theater will feature luxury motor-operated leather seats, complete with built-in cell phone battery chargers.

Unlike older technologies that have been installed in many movie theaters, ICE does not attempt to surround a theater-goer’s field of vision with a given movie’s actual action but instead uses sidewall panels to peripherally augment the impact of a cinematic scene.

The new technology utilizes both laser projection and a huge series of non-reflecting, LED-lit panels that line each side of the theater room. A post-production team in France creates custom, ambient images to be projected on the panels, and syncs them to the film. The panels display similar colors as those on the main screen to project around the audience seating area. The side walls of the auditorium display abstract images in the form of color, light, and movement that are interconnected with what is appearing in the movie on the front screen. The result for the film-goer is a flood of input at the point of each individual’s peripheral vision.

As its name indicates, the idea is to have each person undergo a full immersion experience into his or her cinematic surroundings.

CGR Cinemas, the original developer of the ICE concept, is the company that runs one of the leading theater chains in France. The ICE concept headed over to the U.S. following the movie chain’s initial launch in France two years ago. Box-office revenues reportedly doubled the standard screen revenues in France, when it was utilized in 35 ICE-equipped theaters.

Hollywood is undergoing a digital revolution that has executives of the conventional movie kind experiencing some high anxiety. According to data from the Motion Picture Association of America, 1.3 billion movie tickets were purchased in the U.S. and Canada last year, which was down from a peak of 1.6 billion in 2002.

No doubt the movie industry is in flux as streaming giants such as Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, and Amazon continue to alter the digital entertainment landscape.

No real worries, though, for tried-and-true cinema-plex fans. Entertainment entrepreneurs and inventive artists the world-over are stepping up with forward thinking ideas that hold great promise in the cinematic field of dreams.

Why CrowdStrike May Be the Real Reason for the Impeachment Charade

pelosi_impeachment_trump

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What we have here is an impeachment defense.

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

Why Democrats Should Fear a Senate Trial

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mv5bmdfknza3mmmtytc1mi00zwnjlwjjmjctodq2zgi2owy0ymexxkeyxkfqcgdeqxvymda4nzmyoa4040._v1_sy1000_cr006741000_al_

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Real Jane Fonda

fonda_vietnam_3171436b

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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