By Debbie Schlussel
What if a well known TV host, say Martha Stewart, had a show in which White people were given $1 million each to engage in various televised competitions to help Black people who were alleged targets of racism? We’d call that a minstrel show. And Stewart’s career would be finito (finita?). But when Oprah does it and instead of race being the divide, indigence is, it’s suddenly okay?
Puh-leeze.
Tonight’s “Oprah’s Big Give” show is disgusting in its minstrel show quality. If Oprah truly wanted to help poor people, she would do it quietly and in private, instead of turning these people into museum exhibits on camera, exploited in an Oprah-eponymous (of course!), publicly broadcast game, the ultimate goal of which is to further expand Oprah’s broadcast TV profits. It reminds me of Warren Beatty’s protests to Madonna, in the documentary “Truth or Dare“:

(Oprah Mag Artwork Courtesy of the Talented David Lunde)

Why do you have to film everything? If it’s not on film, it didn’t happen?

And who judges this “competition,” in which the Roman coliseum features down-on-their-luck Americans instead of men fighting lions? Well, the judges are Malaak Compton-Rock, whose only qualification was that she’s sleeping with comedian Chris Rock and managed to get him to put a ring on her finger (although he’s twice sought a divorce from her). Oh, and there’s Tony Gonzalez, whose claim to fame is that he’s a faux-vegan (who ingests chicken and salmon and milk), poor-quality NFL football player? And “Naked Chef” Jamie Oliver. All three of these cretins should be ashamed of themselves for profiting at the expense and exploitation of poor Americans, using their misfortune for ratings.
But they aren’t. Ms. Compton-Rock announced she’s hosting a viewing party. And I almost forgot–the show is hosted by gay interior decorator Nate Berkus. And he’s quite an expert on altruism. When Oprah did her disgusting Hurricane Katrina exploitation show, Berkus and Oprah “reporter”/HAMAS-lover Lisa Ling famously let a displaced Black man’s dog sleep in the house in which they were staying, but they made the man sleep in the sewage-infested New Orleans Park. Berkus even made sure we knew the man’s dog’s name. Never learned the man’s name, though.
“The View’s” resident airhead/pseudo-conservative Elisabeth Hasselbeck–whose only qualification in life is that she was a bug-eating contestant on another horrid reality show, “Survivor”–sang the “virtues” of this nauseating show:

Everybody, this show is like a reality show, only it’s much better because it helps people and is about good.

Uh, wrong. Although they all stink, this is the worst of the reality shows because it is all about exploiting the unfortunate with the phony visage of altruism to give it the kosher seal of approval. Sickening.
And I’m not the only one who’s disgusted at this vulgar display. USA Today’s liberal TV critic, Robert Bianco, agrees, though he’s far more charitable about Oprah’s motives:

How can earning a spot in heaven compare with a place in prime time?
Anyone old-fashioned enough to believe in keeping acts of righteousness private should give a wide berth to Oprah’s Big Give (ABC, Sunday, 9 ET/PT), Queen for a Day as reinterpreted by the Queen of All Media. An Apprentice-type game that turns charity into a competitive sport, Give will strike you as immensely uplifting or horrifyingly vulgar, or an odd combo of both.
Good works clash with bad behavior, altruism shares space with publicity-masked-as-charity, all wrapped in the familiar reality-genre cliches. And at the stomach-churning center is that old American TV belief that every problem can be solved with a take-home prize, without any consideration for underlying difficulties. . . .
Extreme Makeover: Home Edition treads much of this same maudlin, TV-knows-best territory. But at least that show doesn’t turn the people it’s making over into pawns in a game – a game that inevitably elevates the players’ problems to the level of the people they’re supposed to be helping. . . . For all its new-age trappings, Give is a throwback to a time when the poor were expected to be grateful for whatever they were given.
Seldom has the drive to do good works been as alarmingly, offensively presumptuous. When a homeless woman says she had hoped to be trained for a job, you can’t help thinking she may have had the best idea of what was best for her. Might there not be some widows who don’t want to be surprised with a block party or toy-buying spree, or who don’t like strangers telling their children how to best mourn their father?
There’s no doubt everyone involved means well.

Speak for yourself on that last line, Mr. Biano. There’s no doubt for me because I think it’s quite obvious none of the participants means well–not the judges, not the host, and certainly not the billionairess Executive Producer who shoved her name on it as yet another notch on her superhighway of braggadocio in the conglomerate that is Oprah.
It’s quite obvious there aren’t any good intentions here. This is all about Oprah. I feel sorry for the poor people used like dirty diapers by Queen O. Don’t worry, she won’t be giving them a cut of the profits action.
This show is a disgrace. And so is Oprah.

By Debbie Schlussel
I gotta say I’m impressed with Prince Harry. Although the Brit Royal Family is known for its pan-Islamist and other leftist politics, the Prince showed up the partying Bush twins by not only going to fight in Afghanistan, but actually killing 30-odd Talibanis. Anyone who does that–royal or not–is a hero in my book. But this guy is one, because he didn’t have to go and could have remained in his life of privilege, valets, and castles. (No, I haven’t forgotten his Nazi costume, but this makes up for it somewhat.)
Meanwhile, Jenna Bush tours the U.S. in luxe comfort, absurdly comparing herself to Anne Frank, while promoting her book about a teen single mother with AIDS and preparing for her wedding at the Bush Ranch. Her sister is also in equal comfort, seen partying in NYC on TMZ. My friend, Sirius Patriot Channel 144 host Mike Church (on whose show I review movies every Friday at 10:30 a.m. Eastern), picked Harry as a hero and example to other young adults, and I agree. Here are some vids of the Prince in Afghanistan and talking about his experience upon his forced, premature return (the second one is from BBC).
Bravo, Prince Harry. Sorry you were outed by Drudge.

The Progeny of Western Leaders, Hero vs. Skank: Him Versus . . .

Her . . .

By Debbie Schlussel
Whoever made this video certainly listens to Rush Limbaugh, as Rush uses Sammy Davis, Jr.’s rendition of “Candy Man” to symbolize the ceaseless promises of tax-funded goodies that come from Barack Hussein Obama’s lips at every turn. The video is good, but its video clips could have been of better quality. Enjoy:

By Debbie Schlussel
**** UPDATE: Video Here ****
Hmmm . . . Things must really be getting desperate. Last week, it was Mike Huckabee. And tonight, as I write this, Hillary Rodham Cankles Clinton is on my TV screen in a surprise appearance on “Saturday Night Live” along with her impersonator, Amy Poehler. And they’re wearing the same ugly brown blazer.
Gotta hand it to her. This was a smart move. She has nothing to lose and everything to gain in Texas and Ohio by being there. Gotta wonder, though, just how many SNL viewers are voters in the Democratic (or any) primary.
We shall see. . . but I doubt it will make enough of a difference for her. I never thought I’d say this, but–as much as I despise Cankles–given the choice I much prefer her as the less evil of two lessers to pan-Islamo-Marxist B Hussein O, so I encourage you who live in Ohio and Texas and other states voting Tuesday who are reading this to cross over and vote for her in the Democratic primary if you can.

Cankles, the Real Thing & As Played by SNL’s Amy Poehler
**** UPDATE: I’m not a fan of SNL, which I rarely watch and which has been unbearably terrible in recent years, er . . . decades. And while tonight is no exception to that observation, “TV Funhouse: The Obama Files” animated cartoon about Barack Hussein Obama, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton wasn’t completely bad. Got stupid and went on too long, but the beginning had the right idea. Will post if I can find a copy.

By Debbie Schlussel
One of the things that angered me most all week was the New York Philharmonic’s trip to Pyongyang, North Korea, this week, to play their music. It’s as disgusting as if they played in Cuba or Saudi Arabia or Iran. It reminds me of the Israelis playing Wagner music. Sickening. Have they no sense of human rights? Do they not care at all about the incredible lack of human rights in North Korea? Do they not care an iota about what Commie dictator Kim Jong-Il is doing to the people of his country? The many innocents he’s murdered?
They just play music, and don’t engage in politics, they claim. Right, “Don’t ask us, we just work here.” Since they’re being used as a propaganda tool, you can be sure they won’t get the treatment U.N. Weapons Inspector Hans Blix got from Kim in “Team America: World Police.”

Kim Jong Il & Hans Blix in “Team America”
But you barely heard a peep about this, especially from the right, which should be all over this disgusting display. One of the few voices that came out against this travesty was the Wall Street Journal’s brilliant Melanie Kirkpatrick. Her piece, “The Sound of Dictatorship,” is right on the money. An excerpt:

Defenders of the New York Philharmonic’s trip to Pyongyang this week like to chant the mantra, “It’s about music, not politics.” If only dictator Kim Jong Il saw it that way. In the context of a totalitarian regime, that’s a naive view, not to say a dangerous one.
In North Korea, the purpose of music, like that of all the arts, is to serve the state. Maestro Kim Jong Il — who in his youth oversaw the transformation of North Korean cinema, opera and performing arts into “revolutionary” forms — understands that mission full well. It remains to be seen how he’ll use the Philharmonic’s concern internally — North Koreans were informed of the visit only on Friday. But performances of international arts groups are routinely portrayed as admiring vassals carrying tribute to the Great Leader, so there’s little reason to think the Philharmonic will rate different treatment. His aim for external consumption is already clear: to give the impression that his barbarous regime is civilized. Look, we even appreciate great Western music played by one of the world’s most eminent orchestras.
For a glimpse into the kind of music that North Koreans are accustomed to hearing, consider the concert that took place 10 days ago at the East Pyongyang Grand Theater, the venue where the Philharmonic tonight will play Gershwin’s “American in Paris” and Dvorak’s “New World Symphony” under the baton of Lorin Maazel. The occasion was the national holiday celebrating Kim Jong Il’s 66th birthday. Among the pieces performed by the State Symphony Orchestra was “The Sound of a Horse’s Hooves on Mt. Paektu.” Paektu is the sacred mountain that Kim hagiographers claim as his birthplace. (In fact he was born in Russia.) Also on the program was Kim’s personal anthem, “No Motherland Without You.” Its lyrics include:
Even if the world changes hundreds of times
People believe in you, Comrade Kim Jong Il!
We cannot live without you.
According to Kim Young-nam, a composer who escaped from the North 10 years ago, songs extolling Kim and his father, “Eternal Leader” Kim Il Sung, are performed far more often than “Aegukka,” the national anthem. . . .
In a telephone call from Seoul, Kim Young-nam describes his training at a music college in a provincial city he prefers not to name for fear of endangering family members and former colleagues. “In every art form in North Korea,” he says, “you have to emphasize the party line and national pride. There is this framework that you have to adhere to. . . . Everything we composed had the goal of extolling Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il. The end production of my work was to praise socialism. . . .The performing arts are merely a means to a political objective.”
Kim Young-nam recalls two friends who were arrested and punished for playing illegal music. One, he says, was a guitarist caught singing a Korean-language version of Frank Sinatra’s hit, “My Way.” The other was a pianist who dared to play Irish music. Disco, tango and jazz, he says, “are banned because anything that would produce a capitalist mindset such as love or indulgence are prohibited.”

Read the whole thing.

By Debbie Schlussel
**** UPDATE: Larry King/Marlon Brando vid added ****
Dead Man Walking. . .
I already told you about Janet Jackson’s S&M pop in her desperate and doomed-to-fail attempt to regain relevance. Now, she’s teaching Larry King hip-hop moves. This video is so wrong and annoying on so many levels. Aging bags of bones in jeans with suspenders trying to do hip-hop. Attention, CNN Advertisers: You, too, can reach this important demographic. It reminds me of the Larry King interview with the anti-Semitic Marlon Brando, where asked King to kiss him, and, of course, the old fool King obliged . . . in the same way he said “I do” at least seven times at the altar.

**** So here’s Part I of the Larry King Interview with Marlon Brando. You only need to watch until the one-minute mark, which gives highlights of all the absurdity King and Brando engaged in. King’s career should have ended then, in 1994. But no, it’s still “going,” 14 years later.

By Debbie Schlussel
If you’re like me, and you like ordering lemon slices with your drinks at restaurants, bars, etc., it might be a good idea to stop. After reading this, I won’t ask for them any more. In fact, I’ll ask that they NOT be used.
A science professors study of 76 lemon slices from various restaurants found that 53 of them harbored harmful germs, including those associated with fecal material. Poop in your drink? Eeuuww!:

Who knows whether these lemons have been handled using sanitary procedures? Anne LaGrange Loving, a professor of science at Passaic County Community College, decided to find out.

Loving began her investigation after she saw a waitress’ fingertips dip into her soda as the drink was being brought to her table. Although lemon juice is known to kill germs, Loving devised a study to determine whether lemon slices contain germs when they are served to customers.
Using sterile collection swabs, Loving took two samples from each of 76 lemons that were served in restaurants in North Jersey. Patrons normally start to drink a beverage moments after it is served, so samples were taken right away, before a sip was taken and before anyone at the table touched it. One swab was rubbed along the rind, while a second was rubbed along the pulp. The restaurants were unaware that she was doing this. Samples were then analyzed for microbes at a clinical microbiology laboratory.
A total of 25 different types of germs were found on 53 out of the 76 lemons that were sampled. Some were fecal in origin (either from dirty fingertips of the restaurant employees, or from meat-contaminated cutting boards and knives), while others were types commonly found in saliva, on the skin and in the environment.
One sample had six different microorganisms on it, three of which are found in fecal material. Although some lemon slices had germs either only on the rind or only on the pulp, 29 percent had germs on both sites. In 15 instances the germs on the pulp were completely different from those on the rind, indicating that the pulp had been in contact with a contaminated surface as or after it was sliced. Sometimes when more than one lemon was sampled during a single restaurant visit, different germs were found on each.
Although there have been no reported outbreaks of illnesses attributed to lemon slices in beverages, every microorganism that was recovered had the potential to cause a variety of human infections.

This gives the saying, “Think before you drink,” a whole new meaning. GUH-ROSS!

By Debbie Schlussel
I didn’t particularly like any of the new releases at the box office, this weekend. Of them, the best is “Penelope,” but even that is a chick flick that had a lot of shrieking in it. Interestingly, it and “The Other Boleyn Girl” are about social-climbing parents try to shove off their daughters on rich bluebloods solely in the interest of selfishness and station in life.
* “The Other Boleyn Girl“: This is the story of two sisters, Anne and Mary Boleyn, who were among the many conquests and wives of King Henry VIII in the 1500s. Based on the book of the same name, it’s about how the girls’ social-climbing, ambitious father plotted with his brother-in-law to farm the two girls out to the married king for sex, in the hope that one of them would bear him a male heir who would be king, which would improve the family’s social and financial standing.

While Anne (Natalie Portman) is slutty, scheming, evil, and wants the married king (“Munich’s” phony Mossad agent, Eric Bana), Mary (Scarlett Johansson) is good and kind and devoted to her husband, and not too happy when she is a forced concubine to the king. The movie is full of treachery–with their father and uncle repeatedly plotting how to get one or the other of them in bed with the king. It all ends in tragedy.
This is basically a chick flick with nice period-piece costumes. But you’d never see this kind of stuff even in today’s trashy soap operas. True, these things happened. But, as I watched this sickening movie–filled with not only a father and uncle whoring out two girls, but instances of incest–I thought to myself, gee, in 2504, will there be a movie, “The Other Uday and Qusay Hussein Girl,” in which fathers whore out their daughters–or married daughters are forcibly seized against their will–as they were for Uday and Qusay Hussein and their father Saddam? Or will we see a movie, today, about Islamic kings and leaders who did the same at that time?
And as I watched this movie, I couldn’t help but note that in Britain today, and everywhere else around the Western world, these kinds of things do not happen anymore, except in the Muslim communities therein. Non-Muslim men cannot seize women, even if they are pigs with a crowns on their heads. Non-Islamic fathers cannot run prostitution rings farming out their daughters.
But there is one place where this stuff of the uncivilized does occur on a daily basis: The Islamic World. If King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia or some other Prince or Sheikh wants your daughter, she’s seized to become part of his concubine harem. It goes on every single day. And then, as in this movie, her “virtue” is taken and no-one else will marry h er. In the Islamic world, every single day, fathers willingly whore out their daughters or are forced to at swordpoint to Islamic “nobles”.
As I’ve repeatedly noted on this site, in Shia Islam, men take on temporary marriages (for the period of a few hours up to a few days or a year or so) with no divorce settlements, for the purpose of sex only. It’s the only society that still believes openly and full force in polygamy (even the Mormon Church has ruled out polygamy and only a few extreme sects practice it).
But you’d never see a “The Other Beydoun Girl” or “The Other Al-Khalifa Girl” movie. If the characters in this movie were Muslim, it would resemble modern times. And if the characters in this movie were Muslim, CAIR et al will be screaming “bloody murder.”
So, it’s okay to remind us of the way the English nobles lived 500 years ago, but hell hath no fury if we show how Muslims live today in “modernity.”
Not for kids.
* “Semi-Pro“: Since I like Will Ferrell, I really wanted to like this movie. But I didn’t. After the far superior “Talladega Nights: The Legend of Ricky Bobby” and less so “Blades of Glory,” I really think Ferrell should give up on the pro sports theme in movies. He’s now done three in a row, this one is the worst of ’em, and he needs a new shtick.
Ferrell plays Jackie Moon, bi-racial, barely-hip owner, coach, and player of the Flint Tropics in the American Basketball Association (ABA). It’s the mid-’70s, and–as really happened in real life–the ABA is merging with the NBA, which will only absorb a few successful ABA teams. Moon, desperate to keep his failing team alive, wants it to be one of the chosen teams. The ABA commissioner reluctantly agrees that if Moon’s team is in the top four in wins by season’s end, it’ll join the NBA. Moon goes to great lengths to increase the number of spectators at games and wins. He brings in Monix, a former NBA player (Woody Harrelson).
While I laughed, it was way too infrequently. Most of the jokes in this movie are groaners. Not funny. Was it funny to watch Ferrell wrestle a bear, attempt an Evil Knievel-style jump over 20-some cheerleaders in bikinis, rip-off fans in promotions, and wear exaggerated plaid bell-bottoms of the ’70s? Yes. But the jokes only went so far. The best thing about this movie is the BS banter of the sportscasters calling the game. Other than that, yaaawn.
This movie was like a Saturday Night Live skit that goes on for two hours. It was bearably funny for like five minutes, mildly entertaining for a few more, and incredibly stupid for the rest.
The movie poster for this claims, “Putting the Funk into the Dunk.” More like “Putting the Clunk into the Dunk.” Semi-Pro: Not Even Semi-Bearable.

* “Penelope“: A girl (Christina Ricci) from an aristocratic family is subject to a family curse and is born with a pig’s snout for a nose. Her parents, desperate to marry her off and also to avoid tabloid exploitation of her nose, are trying to get a fellow blue-blood to marry her. If one does, the legend says that the curse will wear off and her nose will be normal. But every guy that sees her runs like hell. Add to that a photojournalist from a tabloid who’s trying to get a photo for the paper.
You’d think that, in the age of plastic surgery, this movie would be easily resolved with a quick nose job. But they’ve thought of everything, fellow cynics. It’s discovered that her carotid artery runs through her nose, so an operation is out of the question.
While this movie was charming and entertaining enough, it’s also a little bit too quirky and offbeat. And it’s basically a very predictable chick flick. In the end, everything works out. Reese Witherspoon, who co-produced this movie, makes a cameo as a very annoying working-class motorcycle messenger. The very stereotypical way she played the woman–as an ignorant, coarse hick–grated on me and spoke volumes about how she sees the average American. I was also annoyed by the even mix of Brits and Americans in the cast. It’s as if, they didn’t want to tell you where this movie was set, lest they upset either country’s audience.
Would have been much more interesting if the movie was about a Muslim girl born with a pig snout. Now that would be a great study in tolerant our “Religion of Peace” friends really are. An okay movie, but no big whoop. You can definitely take kids to see this.
* “Bonneville“: This coming of old-age movie, in which three aging women–two of whom are Mormons–take a roadtrip was neither new, fun, nor exciting. A pointless exercise in the waste of 1.5 plus hours, it’s about new widow Jessica Lang’s road trip with Kathy Bates and Joan Allen to transport the ashes of her late husband to his snobby, adult daughter from a previous marriage. Her husband wanted his ashes to be scattered to the various sites they liked to visit and vacation in, but if she doesn’t give the ashes to her step-daughter, the daughter will take her home. The late husband didn’t make a new will, and the old one leaves everything to the daughter.
Not only did I find this movie boring and a rehashed muddle of a million other roadtrip and 50-something chick flicks, but as a lawyer, it was flawed. Under the law of most states, a wife of twenty years, as in this case, would be entitled to at least half of her husband’s property upon his death, even if he willed it to someone else. And she might even be entitled to the home outright, depending upon how the title recorded ownership.
Best suited for Oprah followers and the cat ladies who watch PBS. Skipworthy.

* “Taxi to the Dark Side“: No shocker that this rehash of stuff from 2002-2004 about U.S. prisons for Islamic terror suspects in Bagram (Afghanistan), Abu Ghraib (Iraq), and Guantanamo Bay (Cuba) won the Oscar, last Sunday, for Best Documentary. There’s nothing new here. It’s the same stuff we’ve been hearing from the left for years–ie., that a woman letting her hair fall on the back of a Gitmo prisoner was sexual “torture” (so says his lawyer) because Muslims believe in modesty (right–like they did when they patronized prostitutes and a strip club right before 9/11. Uh-huh.)
I’m not sure how it constitutes a “documentary” when you make stuff up. We’re shown an artist’s drawing of a Muslim man, with a computer-generated face of a women and the word “WHORE!” on the picture in between them. For a second, I wondered if I was watching “The Vagina Monologues.”
We’re also told that the way America treated Mohamed Al-Qahtani–the 20th 9/11 hijacker–was “torture” because they called him “gay” and only let him sleep four hours a day. Hmmm . . . There are a lot of housewife-mothers and working men who get that amount or less sleep, and I don’t hear them saying America is torturing them. Donald Trump brags he only sleeps four hours a day. “The Apprentice: Torture Edition”?
Oh, and here’s another example the movie gives us of how we “tortured” Gitmo prisoners: Interrogators sang, “G-d Bless America” to Qahtani. Horror of horrors! They also “scrambled his sense of time” (by using light and dark and “sensory deprivation”) and wouldn’t allow him to go to the bathrooom, so he peed in his pants. Hmmm . . . Adam Pearl and Nicholas Berg choking on their own blood as they were sliced alive into pieces versus urinated pants. Which one is torure?
The only “witness” this movie uses for what’s happening in Gitmo is the already discredited Moazzam Begg. He and his friends were already featured in the discredited “Road to Guantanamo,” which even liberal movie critics derided for its re-enactments of what the men claimed happened there. Begg and his two friends never explained what they were doing in Afghanistan, apparently training with terrorists, when their homes were supposed to be in the UK. He’s equally as non-credible here.
The biggest problem the left-wing, anti-American “experts” in this fake-mentary/docu-fakery have: They’re upset that, despite everything they believe is evil about America’s treatment of Islamic terrorists, that “despite knowing all of this, 90% of Americans still support this ‘torture.'” Says the same “expert”: “Pop culture that Americans enjoy is the reason that 90% of Americans support legitimized torture.” He’s claims that “shows like ’24′” make Americans allow and even approve this kind of thing.” The commentators in the movie say that “we must debunk ’24.'”
Where’s Jack Bauer when you need him? This is high-quality, but very boring, Bin Laden cinema.

By Debbie Schlussel
To My Readers:
Occasionally, I get e-mails from you complaining about Muslim ads on this site and calling me a hypocrite. Most of these ads promote Muslim singles or dating. I assure you, I DO NOT WANT THESE ADS ON MY SITE. I do not want to help them in any way, nor–since most of them are dating sites–do I want to help them multiply.
The problem is, these ads are generated by Google Ads, which posts ads on my site in response to key words in my text. When I write about Islam or Muslims, the ads pop up. I don’t always see them, but when I do, I and my webmaster report them to Google Ads and ban them from this site. Unfortunately, as many as we ban, there are so many more with different names and URLs that pop up. And, like I said, we don’t always see them.
So, I need your help. If you see a Muslim ad pop up on this site, please note the name on the ad and click on it–then note the URL to which it takes you. Then, please e-mail me both of those items–the name of the ad and its corresponding URL/domain name. As soon as I get them, I will ban them.

Thanks for your help and your understanding in this matter that is somewhat beyond my control and a reactive–not proactive–process, as it is not one I can prevent before it pops up on my site.

By Debbie Schlussel
Sadly, far too many conservatives are drooling over an op-ed piece by new “national security expert” Angelina Jolie in the Washington Post. In it, she argues that we should stay in Iraq, but not because she gives a damn about America’s national security interests, the safety of our troops, or defeating Al-Qaeda and Mahdi Army (Jaish Al-Mahdi) terrorists.
Nope. She’s only worried about Islamic refugees. And she’s frequently used them as an issue over which to attack Israel. While she refrained from it in this piece, she gushed over Jordan and Syria, which is a bunch of crap. And she called for America to give more money to Iraqi refugees in Syria and Jordan. Um, why are they refugees? For a good number of them, it’s because they are Ba’athists and Palestinians who were protected by Saddam. It’s our responsibility to help those who helped our enemies?
Her praise of Syria and Jordan is not only disgusting, it’s absolute baloney:

Skankelina Jolie at anti-American, anti-Semitic, pro-HAMAS Arab Children’s Conference Hate-Fest in Jordan, 2004

Skanks for Terror: Angelina Jolie and Jordanian Queen Noor Exchange Wet Kiss at Arab Children’s Conference Hate-Fest, 2004

Syria and Jordan are carrying an unsustainable burden. They have been excellent hosts, but we can’t expect them to care for millions of poor Iraqis indefinitely and without assistance from the U.S. or others.

WHAT?! Syria and Jordan have treated these refugees like crap. They won’t let them work and they won‚Äôt give them any aid. Her claim about them is complete bull, but no surprise since, again, she often visits Syria and Jordan and praises them, while blaming Israel for their “Palestinian” refugees.
Big deal. So she thinks we have to pour more money than we already have into Iraqis’ “welfare” and pay off a terrorist host state in the process. Saying the U.S. has a national security interest in “ending this crisis” doesn’t mean she wants our soldiers to stay there for reasons of terrorism and national security (she never even mentions Al-Qaeda or the Mahdi Army). It actually sounds more like: “we should fund and watch over this refugee problem we caused.” This is standard Marla Ruzicka stuff. Like I said, in the past, Jolie has a record of blaming America and Israel for the world’s refugee problems. I don’t see her diverging from that position here.
And the reason she didn’t mention a thing about Al-Qaeda and Islamists, is because she’s a pan-Islamist. How do I know she likes them? I’ve followed Skankelina for several years, and she hates Israel, appeared at an international anti-Israel/anti-American hate-fest for Arab and Muslim kiddies, and sang along with Palestinian refugees on taking their revenge against Israel. She has never visited Israel (she calls it “Palestine”)–and frankly, who wants her there?–and has explicitly blamed Israel for refugee problems in Arab countries, including for Iraqi Palestinian refugees living in camps in Israel (who, again, fled after Saddam–their guardian–was deposed, NOT anything to do with Israel).
Here’s the real Angelina Jolie Voight, from my 2004 column on her:

Palestinians are between 70 and 90 percent of Jordan’s population, but are ruled by Hashemites, like King Abdullah. Instead of recognizing this, Jolie called Palestinian refugees in Jordan “displaced” from their country, thanked Jordan “for keeping its border open,” and commended the Jordanian government “for hosting the world’s largest group of Palestinian refugees . . . for more than 50 years.” . . .
A much-heralded December 2003 visitor to the Ruweished Palestinian refugee camp in Jordan, Jolie wrote diaries lamenting the treatment of Palestinians. While she doesn’t mention Israel by name or specifically endorse cold-blooded murder, you get the drift. She approvingly quotes the kids and a play they do about Jerusalem “about Arab children and how they live”:
“Palestine was sold by merchants. God knows we are injured and hurt. Be patient we will take our revenge we will take our homes back . . . . (Smiles, fists in the air) Palestine, your name is in our veins. . . .Their dream is to see their homeland. . . . It was very moving to hear them speak of the dream.”

Oh, and don’t forget when Jolie said she was “absolutely ashamed” of America. If Michelle Obama can’t say it, why can she?
And, apparently, everyone’s forgotten when she compared America’s secure border advocates to Hitler.
This woman is sick and whacked out. She cheers on kids singing about killing Jews. That she has a pretty face and happens to agree–for her selfish hate-America reasons–that we should remain in Iraq is no cause for cheer. It is cause to re-examine whether we should actually stay there.
I’m tired of conservatives gushing over every single celebrity who says an inkling of something 100 miles close to what they want to hear. They are so desperate for celebrities to validate their views that they drool a river.
Sometimes, far too frequently, desperation overrides all critical thinking. And that’s the case here.
Make no mistake. Angelina not-so-Jolie is anti-American. She’s said as much. She’s a supporter of Palestinian terrorism against Israel who cheered on calls for “revenge” against Jews to “take back Jerusalem.” She’s an apologist for Islamists, and Syria and Jordanian–both homes to uber-extremism and Islamic terrorism central. She is the woman who harassed ICE agents over their treatment of illegal aliens in detention and removal facilities and demanded they and their kids have tax-paid lawyers. She’s the one who blamed America for refugee problems all over the world and said we’re too tough on illegal aliens. And, while we spent billions on misspent Katrina relief, she said it wasn’t enough.
This is your new heroine, conservatives? You’re whacked. Why didn’t you like Angela Davis back in her day?
If you like Angelina Jolie, there’s no reason not to like Alec Baldwin and Sean Penn. In fact, in many ways, even they are far less offensive.