Matthew McConaughey Signals at Running for Texas Governor

McConaughey Governor Texas Interview Politics

In a recent interview, Academy Award winner Mathew McConaughey said he would consider running for Governor of Texas. The actor discussed other entertainers that have made the transition to politics, such as Arnold Schwarzenegger, Clint Eastwood, Jesse Ventura and even President Donald Trump.

Texas Governor McConaughey?

Mathew McConaughey is making his rounds on the podcast circuit to promote his new memoir, “Greenlight.” In a recent interview on the Hugh Hewitt show he was asked if he would consider running for Governor in his home state of Texas.

He replied, “I wouldn’t be opposed to that. But ultimately it would be up to the people.” McConaughey was born and raised in The Lone Star State. He currently resides in Austin with his family.

“Look, politics seems to be a broken business to me right now,” McConaughey said during the podcast. “When politics redefines its purpose, I could be a hell of a lot more interested. You know, I still question how much you can really get done in politics, and I don’t know if politics is my avenue to get what maybe I am best equipped to get done.”

McConaughey has stayed active in his community over the years. He’s been a guest professor at the University of Texas in Austin since 2015 where he teaches a film class.

During the COVID-19 panic earlier this year, the famous actor hit the road with his wife to donate and deliver more than 100,000 masks to rural Texas hospitals. The next governor’s race is in 2022 and current Governor Greg Abbott is up for re-election.

Film star turned politician

McConaughey noted that the political arena has been incredibly divisive lately and he’d like to see things cool down a bit before he gets involved.

“I want to get behind personal values to rebind our social contracts with each other as Americans, as people,” he said. “This country’s got to stabilize first before we start to say, ‘OK, here’s how we’re marching out of this together forward.’”


Sara Carter: Let the election ‘play out in the courts’

November 9, 2020

Sara A. Carter appeared on a Sunday panel for the Fox News show “The Next Revolution” with Steve Hilton and discussed what she thought about the election results, the media, and President Donald Trump‘s continued legal challenges against the election results, saying that the future Joe Biden administration should “let this play out in the courts.”

“What we have here is four years of a president who was targeted, not only by the mainstream media, but by a bureaucracy that was intent on pushing him out,” Carter said, adding: “And not only Democrats, but there were Republicans that wanted the same thing and we know that. We saw that with the Lincoln Project.”

“This president had gone after so much against him, and now we see the American people—so many more have voted for him, over 70 million than before,” she continued. “And now it’s up to the American people to stand back, let the courts take care of the process, and, in the end, we’re going to get an answer.”

Then she directed her attention at President-elect Joe Biden and his team, telling them to let these legal challenges play out in the courts if he wishes for a peaceful transfer of power.

“If the Biden campaign and the Biden future administration, if that’s what it’s going to be, believes that they won, let this play out—let this play out in the courts, let us count those votes, let us find out what was going on with those computers with dominion technologies in particular,” she said, adding, “and then we’ll have an answer and we will have a peaceful transition of power.”

You can follow Douglas Braff on Twitter @Douglas_P_Braff.



AOC Runs Her Mouth Instead of Taking Care of Her Failing District…Calls Trump ‘Motherf—ker’

AOC president Trump fight

New York Democratic Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez bashed President Trump in a recent Vanity Fair interview. She called him a “motherf—ker” and implied he’s a tax cheat. Ocasio-Cortez, also known by her initials “AOC,” has been an outspoken critic of Trump for years.

Orange man bad

The interview took place shortly after The New York Times reported Trump had only paid $750 in taxes for the year. AOC wasted no time in criticizing the President. “These are the same people saying that we can’t have tuition-free public colleges because there’s no money… when these motherf–kers are only paying $750 a year in taxes.”

Representative Ocasio-Cortez, who identifies as a “Democratic Socialist,” thinks college education, health care and housing should be free. Of course, nothing is free, she just thinks successful Americans should pay for it through outrageous taxes. AOC and some of her colleagues in Congress have suggested a 70% tax rate on top earners.

The Congresswoman didn’t stop there. She went on to pull out the tired old racist accusations against President Trump. AOC also bashed Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. “Trump is the racist visionary, but McConnell gets the job done. He doesn’t do anything without Trump’s blessing. Trump says, ‘Jump.’ McConnell says, ‘How high?’”

AOC cortez New York President Trump

AOC curses out President Trump

AOC represents the new generation of radical Lefties in Washington. She’s also been critical of her own Democratic colleagues because they’re not far-Left enough.

In the Vanity Fair interview she claimed the current Democratic party is “not good enough right now” and needs to get better. The Congresswoman hinted that she would leave the House of Representatives at some point to run for a higher office. “You know how many Trumps there are waiting?” she said.

With the presidential election just a few days away, tensions are running high across the country. AOC acknowledged this in her interview, saying the election isn’t about Trump or Biden. “It’s about a decision between two countries.” She’s right about that.

The American people must decide if they want freedom, peace and prosperity. Or do they want more lockdowns, higher taxes, a tightly regulated second amendment and a Supreme Court packed with radical Left-wing justices. Choose wisely.


60 Minutes Anchor Lesley Stahl Was WRONG, and Flat Out Lied…Here is The Truth

president trump stahl 60 minutes interview

Last week President Trump sat down with reporter Lesley Stahl for an interview on 60 Minutes. During the interview, Stahl accused the President of lying about the Obama-Biden administration spying on his campaign in 2016. Trump insisted that it was true, and the mainstream media is “fake news” for not reporting these facts to the American people.

Stahl an enemy of the people

Over the years, President Trump has repeatedly called the mainstream media “fake news” and “the enemy of the people” for pushing Left-wing talking points and shielding Democratic candidates from controversy. They show open disdain for our great President and some of their childish behavior shows complete disrespect for the office he holds.

Regardless, the President never backs down from an interview and he continues to tackle all of their malicious questioning head on, unlike some other candidates out there. I’m looking at you Sleepy Joe. In the clip below, you will see Lesley Stahl call out the President after he accuses the Obama-Biden administration for spying on his campaign. Stahl claims that is “unverified.”

Maybe Lesley Stahl and her team over at 60 Minutes didn’t get the memo about Operation Crossfire Hurricane. The FBI investigation took place between 2016 and 2017 using electronic and human surveillance to gather information about Trump campaign staff to determine whether or not they had links to Russian officials.

President Trump was right

The Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General has confirmed that the Obama-Biden administration spied on the Trump campaign. The 478 page report documenting the operation was released almost a year ago. So either 60 Minutes is completely ignorant, or they have a clear anti-Trump agenda.

I suspect it’s the latter of the two. Inside the report, Inspector General Michael Horowitz verified that investigations uncovered abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that was used to surveil Trump campaign advisor Carter Page. The FBI had access to Carter Page’s electronic correspondences, which contained sensitive Trump campaign information. The report went on to specifically state that the FBI had accessed Trump campaign communications.

Lesley Stahl also claimed Joe Biden is not a part of any ongoing scandal. Wow, the mainstream media really are hoping that Hunter Biden’s laptop from hell will just magically disappear. Trump rightfully called out the media’s hypocrisy.

As soon as the Hunter Biden laptop scandal broke, reporters caught up with Joe Biden on the campaign trail. Their first question for the presidential candidate in the middle of a huge scandal was, “what kind of ice cream did you order?” Wow. That’s some hard hitting journalism there.

joe biden eats ice cream presidential campaign 2020

Breaking: Sleepy Joe loves ice cream

Twitter took their Left-leaning sentiments a step further. When the New York Post first broke the story about Hunter Biden’s laptop, the tech giant blocked all links to it. They even went so far as to suspend any accounts that shared the story, including the account belonging to the New York Post.

This censorship is clearly a desperate attempt to save Biden’s campaign in the final days before the election. The contents of Hunter’s laptop has been independently confirmed to be authentic.

Besides the pictures of Hunter’s drug use and sexual misconduct, the hard drive also contains emails between Hunter Biden and business associates, tying Joe Biden to multiple deals with foreign companies where he leveraged his position as Vice President to secure millions of dollars.

The presidential election is just days away and Trump is fighting harder than ever to win his second term. He’s been holding three rallies a day in key swing states.

Joe Biden has been mysteriously quiet, dodging any questions about his million dollar deals with Ukraine, China and Russia. Meanwhile, reporters like Lesley Stahl of 60 Minutes continue brushing these critical stories under the rug and lying to the American people.


Director Of Feminist Film ‘Dollhouse’: ‘I Actually Didn’t Feel As Exploited Being A Stripper As I Do As A Screenwriter’

Nicole Brending wore many hats on the set of “Dollhouse: The Eradication of Female Subjectivity from American Pop Culture,” a tale of the rise and fall of fictional child pop star Junie Spoons. Brending wrote, directed, edited, and produced the film, voiced many of the characters, and designed the dolls that are used in place of actors.

Brending and I spoke about her film, its feminist messages, the mid-2000s pop culture satirized, and creating a film with dolls in place of actors.

Junie goes through not just the typical rise and fall of a child star, but through some remarkably heightened issues. What inspired you to take her story to such highs and lows?

There’s a number of things. One of the things that the film is satirizing is how the media is always topping itself. After each episode that Junie goes through, it had to get worse, or crazier, or just more extreme. That was the part of the concept of the film, but also the challenge of the film was to see, like, how much more insane can we get? How can we take it to a place that is inevitable but that’s also unexpected?

The ending of the film was a phenomenal twist. It was simultaneously shocking and yet felt like the only logical conclusion to the story. How did you decide to end her story in such a way?

That way this movie is looking at how we destroy women and dismantle them and take from them and so, like, that’s a part of it. So it was kind of like the only thing to do eventually is to discard her when she’s no longer useful, but I don’t want to give away the ending.

There are obvious practical reasons for animating this story — the sexual escapades of a 12-year-old are not something that can or should be filmed with actual actors. The stylistic choice to use the creatively designed and eerie dolls was a really interesting workaround. What made you choose the specific doll-based animation for this film? Did you ever consider other animated forms?

I worked dolls and puppets before, and one of the things that I really love about them is, more than traditional animation, people really seem to connect with them. There’s kind of a living quality to them that a regular animation wouldn’t have. I had this one film some years back called “Operated by Invisible Hands” that was this love story between these two dolls. At first, people are laughing, and they think it’s funny.

Then there’s a point at which they get quiet, and you realize it’s not because they’re not engaged; it’s because they’re so engaged with the love story. I think there’s something there’s that aspect of them that I really wanted to bring to the project. It’s important that people connect to the story.

I also think, like you said, for the purposes of satire, there’s a lot of stuff you can’t do with real people or it would be unpalatable. You could, but it would be unpalatable, like the sex tape, like literally all of the film. In order to really get across the truth of I’ve what I’m trying to explore in terms of misogyny in our perspective on women, I wanted to do it in a satirical way, and I wanted to do it in a way that people could watch and get the meaning from and really, really take some truth from it, but not feel like they were being preached to, and not feel like they were being alienated.

With static dolls, there is an added benefit of style and it contributes to the doll motif throughout the film. However, you do lose facial expressions and body language. Did you ever fear the effect of losing this form of storytelling? As a director, how did you work around that? And how did it factor into your design of the dolls?

One of the things that I enjoy doing with puppets is finding an expression that really captures the essence of that character. That came through the story, and then through the directing of them, the way that we shoot. I’ll get certain angles and certain kinds of staging. It actually really changes your perception of their expression.

And then of course there’s the voice acting, but I’ve had actors say to me, after seeing some of my puppet movies, “Yeah, it really means you don’t have to do much as an actor.” There are tricks to dealing with that, and I kind of prefer it and having the mouths move. It cheapens the effects of them being toys.

One of the other reasons I think viewers like the dolls is that they seem like toys. There’s this idea that you could maybe be doing this at home. To have things that are professionally made, or that were made for them to be on film, cheapens the effects.

For the latter third of the film, the film is hijacked by a new character from seemingly out of nowhere, and that is Trans Junie. What was the inspiration behind that character, and what were you trying to get across to audiences?

What we’re trying to get across to audiences in that part is the eradication of female subjectivity from American popular culture. One thing that I thought about just in terms of the structure of the project was that, eventually, Junie would need to be eliminated from her own story.

I thought about different ways to do it. We always hear about these rooms, you know, of white men making decisions about women’s bodies, but I think there’s another way that women are being silenced right now. And I think that’s through gender politics, actually, which is kind of surprising. Their perspectives are being eliminated. I want to look at the logic behind trans ideology, and then see how that logic was being used to silence women.

I think there’s also just an aspect of, like, looking at how we don’t really even respect women’s talents. It doesn’t matter that Junie’s talented. She just is something that we feed off of, and then we get rid of her. It’s just the image of her that Trans Junie takes on. There’s a lot going on in that.

I would say, generally speaking, when we’re talking about the controversial aspects of the film, it’s definitely this part of it. What I’m trying to really demonstrate, because it’s really happening, is how trans ideology is being used to silence women, and it’s unacceptable. I think as women, we are entitled to define what it means to be women.

The film has a clear message against the commoditization and sexualization of young women in the music industry. How do you want audiences to relate the themes of the film into their own lives?

I don’t see this movie as actually being about a pop star. I think women [have] everyday experiences like this, where they are being silenced or they are being ignored. To me, Junie’s story is very much about trying to look at various ways that we deny women their own subjective perspective. I’ve had many women come up to me after a screening and say, “This is what my life is I feel like. I relate to this, like, entirely.”

I definitely think it has broader applications than just the pop world. I’ve also been really pleased with how a lot of men have said, “You know, I really love this movie.” I feel like it’s a way that men can be a part of the conversation about the subject because it’s not vilifying them; it’s looking at how everybody’s culpable.

I think that’s a really important thing to think about, is that we’re all culpable in misogyny and the silencing of women. It’s a lens, so misogyny is a way that we perceive people. It’s not just a group of people acting upon another. I want people to be thinking about that in their daily lives. Even my manager is said, “It’s actually changed the way that I interact with my wife.” That’s really cool. I think that’s like the best thing you can hope for. It starts conversations.

When I was at Slamdance, a filmmaker came up to me in the filmmaker lounge, and he said, “So what movie did you do?” I said, “I did that one with the puppets.” He responded, “You know, I’ve been hearing conversations about that movie, just like overhearing conversations that I couldn’t stop listening to, because people are talking about that subject matter in a way that I’ve never heard people talk about it.” It’s really exciting. I mean, that’s the best you can hope for. I think it does inspire conversations. I also hope people find it funny, and they can have a laugh at the same time.

Real-life pop culture, especially mid-2000s, clearly inspired lots of the aesthetics and events of the film. What was the intention behind that choice? Was it contemporary pop culture or was it more to sort of couch it in a sense of reality, or both?

It’s a little of both. I was thinking of the Britney Spears video “…Baby One More Time.” She’s super sexualized, in a Catholic school uniform, but like she’s like 15. I mean, she’s a child. When I was working on the songs, we were trying to go through an evolution of the music, but then also how the music videos might change as well, with them based on the kind of videos that I’ve seen. To both, not mock them, but satirize them, but also to give people a sense of “this is the world that we live in and this is really happening.”

The songs they felt like music that I grew up on, that early-mid 2000s pop. I was at a party a few months ago and parties were still happening and people playing throwbacks, when we collectively realized how some of the lyrics that we would scream at age like eight, nine, ten. Things like Rihanna’s S&M, or Britney Spears lyrics, that we didn’t understand at the time. Your film did a great job with highlighting like these innocuously shocking lyrics for children…

So funny, it was like, you have that one Christina Aguilera song, “Genie in a Bottle,” and it’s so dirty. They would do interviews with her, and she’d say, “No, it’s not about sex. It’s about respect.” It’s funny how people will try to buy into the marketing even though they know deep down that the messages are there. “Genie in the Bottle” is like, “You got to rub me the right way.” Not all about sex. But you can tell people it’s a metaphor, and for some reason people buy it for a while. I find it fascinating how over and over again, the marketers with the labels try to deceive you that something blatantly sexual is not sexual.

Speaking of that era in pop culture, what is your opinion on the #freeBrittney movement? That whole story seems like something straight out of your film.

Yeah, #FreeBritney certainly feels like an episode straight out of Junie’s life. We’ve even adopted a #FreeJunie hashtag. I haven’t been following too closely, but Britney’s conservatorship certainly looks to be a way for some people to profit off of her. Conservatorships are really only for people in comas or who are so severely mentally ill, they can’t function on a daily basis. Since the conservatorship went into effect, she’s had a Vegas show and was on “The X-Factor,” working the entire time.
Again, I think we are getting back to this principle that women are a kind of property and not autonomous, conscious people. Britney has suffered from a very classic method of control, which is to permanently label a woman as crazy if she acts out. The fact that it’s led to conservatorship and control over her assets is a symptom of how little we regard women and their ability to manage their own lives, and how easily their assets can be taken from them.
If she’s so mentally ill that she needs constant care, then she shouldn’t be working. She should be getting care. But if she’s still capable of making the kind of money she makes, then it would follow that she is capable of managing her own life. Instead, she’s a cash cow for others while she has to ask permission to go to Walmart to spend her own money. It’s disturbing. But, unfortunately, not surprising.

In a film with several unsettling aspects, I found the PhD character to be the one that got under my skin the most. I didn’t really know what to make of him until the ending. What was the purpose of his character, and what did he represent?

He’s the kind of guy who says he’s a feminist but doesn’t actually respect women. He represents a man who thinks that studying feminism entitles him to certain kinds of attention from women. I don’t know if you’ve ever seen the SNL skit where these guys try to pick up a woman at a bar, and when she says no, they’re like “Screw you, b-tch.”

He’s a creepy guy. I mean that’s kind of his deal, that he uses academia, he uses all of this rationalization. You see that a lot of those who commit sex crimes against women have a way of thinking, they’re treating her as if they were, you know, gentlemen.

So in the setting, I don’t think there really is a character other than him that really represents a kind of hostility towards women in deeper, sexual kind of way. He is sort of obsessive, thinking women are objects, women are things to be controlled, really in a basement dungeon kind of way.

What’s up next for you?

I have a couple projects. I’m working on a feature based on my experience when I was a stripper. I think it…ought to be a totally other debate that we have, but I read about how radical feminists tend to be really anti-sex work. I don’t consider myself a radical feminist, but I don’t disagree with that.

However, there are men who make money out of their bodies too, like as construction workers. I actually didn’t feel as exploited being a stripper as I do as a screenwriter. I also have a something in the pipeline on a woman mathematician.