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.

Jeffrey Epstein Case Cloaked in Mystery

screen-shot-2015-01-03-at-5.23.51-pm-e1420298532896

The mystery entangling the main protagonist in the Jeffrey Epstein drama is no doubt more vast and intricate than mainstream media sources would have us believe.

Allegations against the multi-millionaire are monstrous. Scores of sexual abuse offenses involving young women are alleged to have taken place between the years 2002 and 2005.

The evidence gathered by the Palm Beach police, which began in 2005, was reportedly massive in quantity. However, Democrat prosecutor Barry Krischner inexplicably came up with a single count with which to file criminal charges against Epstein, that of soliciting prostitution. Kirschner offered Epstein what appeared to be an outrageous deal involving zero jail time.

One couldn’t help but notice that Epstein was known to be a friend and mega-donor to big-name Democrats, which included the likes of Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry.

According to his own lawyers, Epstein was part of the original group that conceived the Clinton Global Initiative. Former President Clinton was reportedly a 26-time passenger on Epstein’s private plane, which was known as the “Lolita Express.” Allegedly, also along with the former president during a 2002 trip to Africa were passenger-actors Kevin Spacey and Chris Tucker.

Local police chief Michael Reiter was reportedly outraged at the time and sought help with the state case from federal prosecutors. The then-U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Alex Acosta, initiated a federal investigation that culminated with Epstein entering into a 2008 deal in which he pleaded guilty to two state prostitution charges, registered as a sex offender, and paid restitution to three dozen victims that were identified by the FBI. He was sent to prison.

Epstein’s jail time, though, was handled by Democrat officials, who apparently saw to it that he would enjoy the luxury of his own private wing and would additionally have the ability to spend his days at his home during the 13-month sentence. He was also given a subsequent year of house arrest in Palm Beach, Florida.

Epstein’s victims subsequently filed a lawsuit under the federal Crime Victims Rights Act. The court determined that federal prosecutors handling the Epstein sexual abuse case had violated the rights of his victims by keeping secret the deal that they had reached with him.

Adding to the controversy over how the case was handled is an underreported statement that Acosta made, which carried with it the implication that interference with the disposition of Epstein’s case may have taken place, and the interference may have emanated from a government source.

As reported by the Daily Beast, Acosta indicated that he had been told Epstein “belonged to intelligence,” that the matter was “above his [Acosta’s] pay grade,” and that he was to “leave it alone.”

Epstein reportedly entered the financial business world, taking a job for a period of time with investment bank Bear Stearns and subsequently leaving the firm in 1981. According to the Miami Herald, Epstein was a “key federal witness in the criminal prosecution of two prominent executives with Bear Stearns.” The executives were later acquitted.

Reports dealing with Epstein characterize him as a billionaire and a money manager. Interestingly, the man doesn’t appear to be either. He has not been ranked or listed on the Forbes 400 list. According to Forbes, “…there is scant proof he holds a ten-figure fortune.”

The manner by which Epstein became wealthy is an enigma. His fortune reportedly comes from his money management firm, The Financial Trust Co., which is located in the U.S. Virgin Islands. However, the Wall Street trading desks don’t know of Epstein’s transactions, nor do his dealings appear in business trade publications as would be expected.

Little to no information regarding a client list or other records has thus far been made public by The Financial Trust Co. One known former Epstein client is retail billionaire Leslie Wexner, who reportedly stopped doing business with Epstein more than 10 years ago.

According to reports, Epstein employed no portfolio managers or analysts. Instead he purportedly handled by himself investment decisions involving tens of billions of dollars.

Epstein seemed to be able to rub elbows with the rich and famous even after he bore the stigma of registered sex offender. One might think that after the #MeToo scandals in which Spacey, Harvey Weinstein, and Les Moonves became embroiled, the highly recognizable level-three registered sex offender would be persona non grata at entertainment industry events.

Not so. In late 2010 Epstein held a dinner party for Great Britain’s Prince Andrew at his New York 71st Street mansion, with guests that included Chelsea Handler, Katie Couric, Woody Allen, Charlie Rose, and George Stephanopoulos. In 2011 Epstein attended a “billionaire’s dinner” along with Silicon Valley celebrity CEOs Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk. And in 2016 Epstein was in attendance at the celebrity filled premiere of the Warner Bros. film “Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice.”

Epstein’s is a saga that involves some of the nation’s most wealthy and powerful, those individuals whose status affords them the opportunity to hobnob in elite circles that stretch from East Coast to Left and beyond.

Details involving the case are still in the process of unfolding and probably will be for a long time to come. So, too, will its foul nature, drama, and mystery.

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.

Democratic Presidential Candidates Compete for Hollywood Cash

26-pete-buttigieg-joe-biden.w700.h467-696x464

When it comes to campaign financing of Democrat presidential hopefuls, Hollywood’s ATM is open for business.

One after another, Dem candidates have been heading west to make their withdrawals. While there, they typically try to grab a bit of stardust wherever it can be found.

Former veep Joe Biden, mayor of South Bend, Indiana Pete Buttigieg, senator from California Kamala Harris, and senator from New Jersey Cory Booker have either already held Left Coast fundraisers or are in the process of scheduling them.

Harris has shaken the Tinseltown money tree a couple of times so far. She will be returning to the Golden State on May 19 for a campaign event in LA’s Hancock Park, hosted by Gotham Group’s Ellen Goldsmith-Vein.

In the first quarter of the year, Harris was able to garner a greater amount of cash from individuals and entities in the entertainment biz than her fellow contenders. But that was before Biden entered the race. She now plans to hold a number of events in late May, including one co-hosted by media investor and producer Peter Chernin.

Booker has plans for a two-day LA tour starting on May 29, complete with several events hosted by prominent entertainment industry figures.

Hollywood has always been a tried-and-true money source for Democrat Party politicians. The Party and its candidates are well aware that when then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton sought cash for her campaign during the previous election cycle, contributors such as Haim Saban, Steven Spielberg, and Jeffrey Katzenberg donated mega-bucks to Priorities USA Action, a pro-Clinton super-PAC that was allowed to collect unlimited contributions.

Entertainment sources contributed $22 million to Hillary, and to the super-PACs aligned with her, through mid-October 2016, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. By comparison, the same group of Hollywood donors gave less than $290,000 to then-candidate Donald Trump.

Biden and Buttigieg were the most recent candidates to seek financing from entertainment industry sources for their respective campaigns.

Back in 2007 Biden had a difficult time, though, competing with the then-presumed frontrunner Hillary and new face in town at the time Barack Obama. Currently, however, Biden’s chief advantage is the name recognition he has acquired, having been around in politics for the past fifty years.

As writer-director Adam McKay recently tweeted, “Free slogan for Joe Biden’s campaign: ‘You’ve heard my name before.’”

During his first Tinseltown trip of the 2020 campaign cycle, Biden’s notoriety paid off in a big way. Hollywood gave him a massive take in the form of a fundraiser at the home of ex-HBO executive and former ambassador to Spain James Costos along with his partner and ex-White House interior designer Michael Smith. The event brought in more than $700,000. The host committee included Katzenberg, Chernin, actor Rob Reiner, and CBS Films President Terry Press.

The former veep appears to be staying away from specific issues and is instead focusing on a liberal pie-in-the-sky cliché that he will somehow bring unity to the nation should he be elected.

“I promise you if we elect a Democrat this time — I predict to you whether it’s me or someone else, but I guarantee you if it’s me — what’s gonna happen is, we’re going to see this country come together like it hasn’t in a long time,” Biden said.

While on the Left Coast, he attended a lunchtime campaign meeting as well as a late afternoon public event with Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti.

Although Buttigieg is not as well known as Biden, Hollywood, the home of professional story tellers, is enamored with the saga of Mayor Pete’s unlikely contender status. Biden’s entourage may be concerned that Buttigieg could run the table like Obama did in 2007.

Even the most imaginative screenwriters have been intrigued with the idea of a military veteran who describes himself as a Christian, is openly gay, a Rhodes scholar, and mayor of a small city in Indiana, who has unexpectedly become a top-tier candidate, according to the polls in early primary states.

The Hollywood elites have already opened their establishments and homes to hold events to introduce Buttigieg to the entertainment community and to additionally raise campaign dollars. Buttigieg has notched television appearances on the shows of Ellen DeGeneres and Bill Maher.

At the same time Biden was in town, the South Bend mayor chalked up a slew of Hollywood events, including a breakfast organized by producer Jordan Horowitz, a public event with Garcetti at SEIU Local 99 to support a ballot measure to raise the parcel tax, a gathering with Gina Gershon, Christopher Guest, and Laurie David, a lunch in Brentwood, an event at The Abbey in West Hollywood, and a cash-seeking get-together at Gwyneth Paltrow’s home, where he answered questions from more than 100 attendees, including actors Bradley Whitford, Amy Landecker, and Martin Sheen, former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, director Rob Reiner, Costos, and Smith.

Buttigieg is planning a momentum-seeking return trip to the Left Coast in June to raise money and connect with Hollywood power players, including a fundraiser at the home of producer Ryan Murphy and husband David Miller.

Expect the mayor to leave with piles of cold campaign cash with a lot more to follow.

Netflix Gets a Hollywood Makeover

netflix-696x533

Netflix has just turned its back on the Silicon Valley tech firms in a move that signals a seismic shift in the entertainment business.

The streaming video giant pulled out of the Internet Association, which is the lobbying entity for web-based businesses, and locked arms with Silicon Valley’s nemesis, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), Hollywood’s preeminent lobbying organization.

The Internet Association is a highly influential trade group that represents the biggest technology companies in the world, including Google, Facebook, and Amazon. The MPAA members are the six studio giants of Hollywood: Disney, Paramount, Sony, 21st Century Fox, Universal, and Warner Bros.

Although the tech firms of Silicon Valley and the entertainment companies of Hollywood have some common interests, they are on opposite sides when it comes to copyright protection and statutory immunities that are of benefit to Internet intermediaries.

Because of recent data scandals and charges of censorship by the largest tech firms, U.S. lawmakers are raising questions about two existing statutes: 1) Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields Internet concerns from liability for content published by their users; and 2) The safe harbor provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which helps to protect such firms from copyright claims.

Hollywood, via the MPAA, has been pursuing more severe anti-piracy measures in an effort to prod Internet intermediaries into taking steps to prevent and remove illegal content that has been uploaded by users.

Immediately after Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg made an appearance in Washington, D.C. before a congressional committee, MPAA head Charles Rivkin requested that Congress begin looking into the possibility of holding Internet platforms accountable, which, of course, raised the specter of government regulation.

Rivken’s rhetoric infuriated Internet Association’s Michael Beckerman, who characterized the MPAA leader’s calls to regulate Internet companies as “shameless rent-seeking.”

Netflix is looking to the MPAA to assist in helping the streaming company expand into markets that in the past have proven to be difficult, if not impossible, to penetrate, which has been especially true with regard to China and India.

Netflix gradually morphed into a different entity from what it was at its onset. In the beginning, Netflix was a streaming platform that hosted third-party content and served as an alternative to Blockbuster and other video rental stores. The Netflix of today, though, is a full blown mega-studio, having reportedly spent about $13 billion on content just last year. Its service seeks to actively pair up content with needs and preferences of its subscribers.

In a recent letter to investors, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings indicated that because of the company’s success in producing original content, it plans to move away from outside programming and make content production the company’s primary objective.

Once dismissed by the industry as an entertainment flash in the pan and a mere rerun platform, Netflix has reshaped the way in which the public consumes entertainment. The industry realized that Netflix had become a threat to traditional entertainment business models, so CEOs sought comfort in mega-mergers and the establishment of new streaming services.

AT&T acquired Time Warner, and the newly formed entity presently has plans to launch a streaming service later in the year. Disney is also set to launch a streaming service, following its pending acquisition of 21st Century Fox. And Comcast will reportedly get into the streaming service business as well, after its acquisition of NBCUniversal is completed.

Netflix recently shocked its subscribers with its biggest price increase ever. A recent survey by Streaming Observer and Mindnet Analytics reveals that Netflix might lose up to 27% of its subscribers due to the price hike.

Another factor that poses a threat to Netflix’s bottom line is that major streaming service competitor Hulu reportedly has plans to lower its monthly charge from $7.99 to $5.99, starting at the end of February 2019.

Netflix is likely to lose much of its licensed third-party content at approximately the same time that Disney’s much-anticipated streamer is launched, complete with entertainment fare from its “Star Wars,” Marvel, and Pixar catalogues.

The current corporate model of Netflix is predicated on rapid growth. However, it now looks as though Netflix will have the brakes applied as emerging competition from Hollywood causes the streaming business to go through a remake.

Democrats’ Policies of Past Match President Trump’s Present

Nancy_PelosiBarack_ObamaChuck_Schumer

When it comes to the issue of immigration, a lot of Democrats are singing a different tune than the one the Party sang in the past.

The current crop of Democrat leaders are advocating for open borders, throwing their support behind so-called sanctuary cities and states, seeking to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants, and believe it or not, actively engaging in voter registration of non-citizens. Some leaders are even pushing to completely abolish ICE, the very agency responsible for enforcing border security.

As a result of some of the policies that the Trump administration has implemented, especially the policies that attempt to enforce the rule of law, a sizable segment of the Hollywood community thinks, most likely erroneously, that they have found a safe opening through which they can enter the political arena. The safe opening to which I refer is what left-wing activists have labeled the “separation of families.”

In truth, President Trump put an end to the separation practice implemented by the Obama administration; however, this fact has been ignored by members of the Hollywood left, which like so many other individuals and groups, are increasingly becoming unglued.

In an interview with The Hollywood Reporter, George and Amal Clooney mused aloud about whether children of the future would ask if our country took babies away from their parents and “put them in detention centers…”

Ellen DeGeneres posted that “we can’t be a country that separates children from their parents.”

In an interview with Rolling Stone, Willie Nelson opined, “What’s going on at our southern border is outrageous…What happened to ‘Bring us your tired and weak…’”

Jim Carrey posted a cartoon painting of Attorney General Jeff Sessions in front of a chain link cage.

Jessica Chastain asked, “Are we really such monsters?”

Mark Hamill tweeted a political cartoon of children in cages.

As a tribute to her father, Anne Hathaway made a donation to Americans For Immigrant Justice for the purpose of honoring “all the fathers torn from their children…”

J.K. Rowling tweeted, “The screams reverberating around the world are coming from terrified children in cages.”

The intriguing thing is that a short time ago Democrats had an entirely different perspective on immigration. In fact, many sounded as if they were partially, and in some cases even totally, in accord with the views of the Trump administration.

Back in 1993 Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said, “The day when America could be the welfare system for Mexico is gone. We simply can’t afford it.”

That same year former senator from Nevada Harry Reid said, “…the American people think our immigration policies are a joke when we select 40,000 new immigrants a year by lottery.” Reid also stated that Americans were concerned about immigration laws because the “net costs of legal and illegal immigration to all levels of government” would be a ridiculously large, a whopping “$45 billion over the next decade.”

In 1994 Feinstein again chimed in on the immigration issue with a political ad showing illegal immigrants crossing the border. She also promised to deal with illegal immigration with more “agents, fencing, lighting, and other equipment.”

In 1995 Bill Clinton said, “It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it.” The former president also stated that the jobs illegal immigrants obtain “might otherwise be held by citizens,” and that illegal immigrants “impose burdens on our taxpayers.”

In 1998 then-congressman Chuck Schumer put out a call for New York’s Attorney General to “bar students from nations designated as terrorist sponsors.” He also insisted that students should not be “using American universities as terrorism training academies.”

President Trump recently tweeted a 2005 video in which then-senator Barack Obama said, “Those who enter the country illegally and those who employ them disrespect the rule of law and they are showing disregard for those who are following the law.” Obama added, “We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked, and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently and lawfully to become immigrants into this country.”

In 2006 then-senator Obama wrote, “When I see Mexican flags waved at pro-immigration demonstrations, I sometimes feel a flush of patriotic resentment.” That same year, Obama suggested that “better fences and better security along our borders” would “help stem some of the tide of illegal immigration in this country.”

Also in 2006, a majority of Senate Democrats voted in favor of legislation for the construction of 700 miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border.

In 2007 Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) railed against “…allowing corporate interests to drive wages down by importing more and more people into this country to do the work that Americans should be doing.”

In 2008 the Democratic platform warned, “We cannot continue to allow people to enter the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked.”

And again, in 2008, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi addressed the “challenge” of illegal immigrants, saying that “we certainly do not want any more coming in.”

In 2009 Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said that “when we use phrases like ‘undocumented workers,’ we convey a message to the American people that their government is not serious about combating illegal immigration.”

In 2013 former President Obama promised to put illegal immigrants “to the back of the line behind the folks trying to come here legally.” And in 2014 he said that an “influx of mostly low-skill workers” threatens “the wages of blue-collar Americans” and “put strains on an already overburdened safety net.”

By 2016 Democrat Party leaders had eliminated from their platform and speeches all talk of border security as they seemingly became convinced that the size of the legal and illegal immigrant population had given them enough electoral leverage to abandon working class Americans.

Most of today’s Democrats are deliberately embracing sovereignty-destroying open border policies and intentionally favoring those who are in the country illegally over their own citizen constituents, which means they have gone further left than pretty much anyone in the Party’s past could ever have imagined.