Ex-Nun Who Boffed Burt Reynolds Censored

Allah has the video of Sally Field looking and sounding more than a little nuts at the Emmy's. You have to understand this is Hollywood. Forget that, perhaps while a Mother, Mustang Sally is not a Mother of a veteran, or someone serving in Iraq - and that while there is Cindy Sheehan and other like-minded Mothers, there are most certainly even more Mothers proud of their sons and daughters serving in Iraq. You might check out Blue Star Mothers for a little reality check.

But Hollywood doesn't require reality to promote its Leftist, anti-war agenda - just some aging babe who went from beach bimbo to flying nun before kicking that habit to boff her way into Smokey and the Bandit fame and a re-vitalized career. Perhaps she's played something close on TV, and that's more than Hollywood requires to promote her view over and above anything that comes close to being accurate, honest, or real.

But then, that's entertainment, or so I'm told. Watch the video. Her statement was so gosh darned profound she actually forgot whatever she had actually planned to say - no doubt too lost in self-absorption for that.

“If mothers ruled the world, there would be no god-damned wars in the first place.”

Comments

[Observer]

Well I guess that is not as bad as if we had to hear a lecture from Loni Anderson

[TheSpartan]

So by your reasoning are we to assume that Blue Star mothers never want their children to come home? That's love...I guess.

[DanShouldWorkatBurgerKing]

She's right. Instead, America is run by a stuttering, cross-eyed moron and unemployed, angry old men like you write about it.

Nice job in Iraq, btw.

[Fred Beloit]

So, by Sally's reasoning are we to assume mothers should keep their children locked in the house forever? That is a mother's love...I suppose.

[templar knight]

Talk about irony, someone who calls himself TheSpartan is a liberal worrying about the war, and its volunteer warriors and their mothers. Change your nick to limpy.

[Chris]

Hey, Sally's kid on that show she got the award for was an Iraq vet. So she, kinda-sorta, knows of what she speaks. Not saying that she has absolute moral authority on the subject. Well, outside of Hollywood, anyway.

[narciso]

Actually the character's serving in Afghanistan, not that means anything.
When her grandchildren are living under
sharia law; they will curse her name.

[dumbblonde]

She certainly received a healthy round of applause.

[Cindi]

War sucks, I am sure we can all agree. Sometimes though,it is necessary.

A good mother realises the childs calling and prepares them, even if it requires going to war.

Hat's off to the mothers and fathers who raised the men and women now serving in our armed forces.

[cindi]

realizes as well ;)

[seekeronos]

The hypocrisy factor is what goes un(der)stated by the likes of Ms. Fields and her cronies:

"Better your children fighting the war than mine - but that won't stop me from making a few brownie points with the Screen Actor's Guild, or the leftist, surrendercrat commies who want to fork over the nation to the Islamists at their (you childrens') expense, either".

[Supernintendo Chalmers (who isn't Islamollamabob)]

...who want to fork over the nation to the Islamists at their (you childrens') expense, either".

LOL!!

Dear Stupid,

that is the most asinine thing I've read today. Thanks for the chuckle.

>

[templar knight]

Chalmers, do you deny that you commie/Leftys are allied with the Islamists? The Leftist moronic convergence I saw in DC this weekend was pretty much proof. Yeah, thanks for the chuckle yourself, moron.

[TheSpartan]

You can disagree with her all you want Seek, but she's hardly a hypocrite. She doesn't want anyone's children fight wars.

[bloodrage bob]

...yet evidently she's just *fine* with sharia-mandated oppression of women and homosexuals. odd she didn't dare come right out and say that, though. choosing instead the insanely brave tactic of mouthing the same tired slogans *everyone else in hollywood* mouths.

[rwilymz]

"do you deny that you commie/Leftys are allied with the Islamists?"

This is what serves no real purpose. No one [here, in any popular grouping] is "allied with the islamists". Europe, maybe, but even there it'd be almost exclusively confined to the recent immigre crowd. Here, this type of comment is m/l deliberately divisive and would seem only to inspire defensiveness.

To the degree that the belief systems of certain American political philosophies have a **net effect** of rationalizing panislamism, or enabling it, then that can and should be pointed out. Most of the people who are quibbling over the details of the fight against pan-islamism are, in fact, grossly naive and/or unknowledgeable about what it is we're fighting. But that doesn't mean they are active and willing participants.

Case in point for gross naivete:
"She doesn't want anyone's children fight wars."

If you don't fight wars, you'll be dust in the history books before too long. Period. Particularly if you are the world's pre-eminent nation. If you are top-dog, EVERYone is gunning for you. Other nations, who have something to lose, will typically wait on the sidelines -- like a jackal -- and wait for a weakness to exploit. The bulk of the damage is done by marauders, those who have nothing to lose, who ankle-bite until the large nation can no longer stand. Then the other nations will gather and feast.

Crack a history book. Happens over and over and over and over. Powerful nations or empires almost never lose out in direct conflict with other powerful nations or empires -- unless they start it, or there is a major technological difference between the armies. They almost always lose, instead, to the "death by a thousand cuts" of the unorganized bands of marauders who weaken the nation to the point that they are conquerable.

A powerful nation cannot afford to ignore small bands of disorganized rabble nipping at their toes. You allow one, you encourage all others. And once they start swarming, you'll probably get a lot of them, but you can't get all. Get them before they start swarming.

The popular denunciation of US foreign policy is: "Iraq didn't do 9-11, therefore they can't be legitimately attacked." They can be legitimately attacked for reasons that have nothing to do with 9-11, including, but not limited to, Iraq's support for other panislamist groups that have skeeter-bit the US. If we're only allowed to go after al Qaida for wasp-stinging us and their state-sponsor for abetting them, but canNOT go after Iraq for state-sponsoring the skeeters, then what you're claiming is that there are "good terrorists" and "bad terrorists" and we're only allowed to shoot the bad ones, even if the "good terrorists" also attack us from time to time.

This is gross naivete. And this is what the vast majority of current foreign policy critics are chock full of.