Film Critic Calls For The Banning Of This Classic Movie – His Reason Why Is Beyond Stupid

What began as a concentrated push to remove the Confederate flag flying at South Carolina’s Statehouse has escalated in recent days to become an increasing attack on anything related to the Civil War period. As radio host Rush Limbaugh predicted earlier this week, some activists are also calling for the American flag to be removed on the basis of its ostensibly oppressive symbolism.

The effort to whitewash America’s history has already made an appearance in the realm of film review – as evidenced by a recent New York Post editorial by Lou Lumenick.

Earlier this week, he penned an editorial with a headline that left no doubt about his position on a Hollywood classic.

“’Gone with the Wind’ should go the way of the Confederate flag,” the title stated. What followed was an article trashing the perceived racism of the 1939 film, leading to Lumenick’s conclusion that the work of art should be destroyed.

The record-shattering film still ranks as one of Hollywood’s greatest successes; however, Lumenick sees similarities to an even earlier film now widely considered to contain racist themes.

Lumenick wrote that Gone with the Wind shares traits with Birth of a Nation, “which was considered one of the greatest American movies as late as the 1960s, but is now rarely screened, even in museums.”

He derided the “subtle racism” he found in the later film, describing it as “in some ways more insidious” than blatant bigotry.

Pointing to the fact that Warner Bros., which owns the rights to Gone with the Wind, has recently curtailed licensing of products bearing the Confederate flag, Lumenick suggested the company do the same with this classic film.

“It’s showing on July 4 at the Museum of Modern Art as part of the museums salute to the 100th anniversary of Technicolor,” he concluded “—and maybe that’s where this much-loved but undeniably racist artifact really belongs.”

Should Americans be forced to scrub any reference to the Civil War from our collective history? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Major Corporations Rush To Applaud ‘Gay Marriage’ Ruling

In the aftermath of a controversial U.S. Supreme Court ruling Friday, both news and social media outlets discussed little else. The landmark decision legalizes ‘gay marriage’ in all 50 states – a move many critics contend exceeded the judicial branch’s constitutional grasp.

Many directly affected by the decision, however, shared their joy over a perceived victory.

Capture

Beyond the overwhelmingly positive reaction social media users expressed, however, was the immediate – and nearly universal – praise the ruling received from major corporations. A flood of tweets by Coca-Cola, AT&T, CVS and a host of other companies posted glowing endorsements of ‘gay marriage.’ Many linked to trending hashtags – such as #LoveWins and #LoveIsLove – in an effort to reach even more users with their posts.

Capture

While it is too early to tell if the calculated reaction to such a divisive issue will pay off for the companies that participated, early social media response indicates fans of certain brands were more eager to endorse the ruling than others.

Even among the largely positive response to posts by companies like Chipotle, however, are a fair number of critical opinions. Some of that backlash came on moral grounds…

Capture

…while much of it derided these companies for ostensibly hijacking a weighty social issue to hawk a product or service.

Capture

Much of the opposition, however, dealt with the apparent hypocrisy with which ‘gay marriage’ advocates react to businesses with an expressed opinion on the subject.

Capture

Though most of the comments are independent thoughts either in favor of or against the high court’s ruling, Southwest Airlines’ supportive tweet sparked the following exchange:

Capture

The Week published an article Friday chronicling the rapid response of public relations teams in the minutes after the decision was announced. Author Scott Meslow concluded that, while expressing a corporate position can have a potential upside, “there’s also something a little unseemly about the self-congratulatory eagerness as these brands have jumped to associate themselves with an extremely popular social movement – and, of course, managed to shoehorn in pictures of their products while doing it.”

Does a corporation’s stance on ‘gay marriage’ change your opinion of the brand? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

This Small County Has Found What May Be The Only Way To Fight Gay ‘Marriage’

Image for representational purposes only.

In the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing gay ‘marriage’ across the nation, social conservatives are considering potential responses. While many choose to fight what they consider judicial activism, other gay ‘marriage’ opponents are taking a more direct stance.

One official in Pike County, Ala., did not wait until the ruling came down to enact what he believed to be the best way around issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. He is simply not granting any marriage licenses requests at all.

According to recent reports, the policy went into effect earlier this year, shortly after Alabama legalized gay ‘marriage.’ Probate Judge Wes Allen justified his decision in the context of liberty.

“I believe that the Alabama Constitution and federal law protect my right to both live my life as a Christian and perform my elected duties,” he said in February. “The way that the law allows me to do that is by giving me the discretion to end the issuance of marriage license and that is the legal course I am taking.”

His bold initiative has begun to spread across the state. Probate judges in other counties are similarly denying all marriage licenses, while a number of state legislators recently backed a bill that would have curtailed all state involvement in licensing marriage.

Lawmakers outside of the state followed suit, with the Oklahoma House voting several months ago to bar the issuance of state marriage licenses. That bill reportedly stalled in the Senate.

Is this judge’s policy an appropriate way to stand up for biblical marriage? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Kim Kardashian West Just Dropped The Ultimate Six-Word Insult On Megyn Kelly

In a recent Variety interview, Fox News Channel anchor Megyn Kelly opined on a number of cultural subjects – including media magnet Kim Kardashian West. Kelly reacted to the reality star’s proud display of her curves with ambivalence.

“I want to know if she’s a force for good or evil,” Kelly explained. “I had someone make the argument that she’s voluptuous, and maybe sending the message to young girls that you don’t have to be a stick figure to be desirable. But I see the other argument too – it’s all enhanced, and you send the message that you need to surgically alter yourself to the point of shocking to be attractive to men.”

West was asked during a subsequent Entertainment Tonight interview to respond to Kelly’s assessment. She began with a caveat: “I don’t know who that is.”

Despite her unfamiliarity with the second-highest rated cable news host, West nonetheless responded to the statement.

“Everyone has an opinion,” she said, “and everyone is entitled to that.”

She went on to describe her own philosophy regarding how others should lead their lives.

“I don’t go around promoting anything,” she concluded, “but I think people should be happy with who they are. And if something makes them feel better about themselves, then by all means, just do whatever makes you happy.”

Aside from some personal gibes by those who dislike the Kardashian clan, most of the reader reaction to The Blaze’s coverage of the issue was mixed.

Some felt Kelly overreacted to West’s apparent cosmetic surgeries – especially considering she relies on makeup and other enhancements in her field. Others, however, suggested Kelly’s point might resonate with those who look up to West – and potentially even West herself.

Does West set an unrealistic example for girls? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

S.C. Police Officer Posts A Photo Wearing These Boxers – Days Later, He’s Fired

A recent WCIV report detailed the real-world repercussions of America’s current debate over the Confederate flag. In the wake of a fatal mass shooting at a South Carolina church, scrutiny over governmental display of the battle flag led to an increasing call to ban it in all situations.

This abrupt shift, intensified by constant media reports, has resulted in marked uncertainty among those who as recently as a week ago openly embraced the Confederate flag.

One such South Carolinian, North Charleston Police Sgt. Shannon Dildine, recently found the new line of decency as dictated by his agency after inadvertently overstepping it. Shirtless and wearing a pair of Confederate flag-inspired boxer shorts, Dildine recently posed for a photo he ultimately uploaded to the Web.

Capture

The image was subsequently shared by social media users and ultimately attracted the attention of NCPD Chief Eddie Driggers. Dildine soon received a termination letter from his boss explaining the reason behind his decision.

“Your posting in this manner led to you being publicly identified as a North Charleston Police officer,” the letter state, “and associated both you and the Department with an image that symbolizes hate and oppression to a significant portion of the citizens we are sworn to serve.”

Reader reaction was mixed, with one popular comment suggesting “the Bill of Rights has been suspended in South Carolina” and expressing hope that Dildine “sues and wins.”

The officer does have 10 days to appeal his termination; however, many pointed out that his freedom to pose in Confederate underwear does not protect him from the potential professional consequences of his choice.

h/t: The Blaze

Was Driggers justified in firing this officer? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth