You would think that amidst countless disagreements between the Left and the Right, one vital area might see agreement: the welfare of children. You also would think that both sides would concur that luring children, grabbing them off the street, or snatching them at the border by those who sell them into sexual slavery, is truly abominable. Alas, you’d be wrong.
A movie, The Sound of Freedom, making the rounds in America should not be political in any way. It is, after all, about a worldwide phenomenon that is despicable beyond words. If ever evil existed in the world, it is amply displayed by those who exploit children and ruin their lives for their own gains.
Attacking the Star to Attack the Movie
Curiously, read reviews or critiques from The Washington Post, The Guardian, or numerous other media outlets. You will see that these media sources are inexplicably gleeful in picking apart the movie. The Washington Post wants to know why lead cast member Jim Caviezel visits conspiracy-focused websites. Caviezel is, of course, merely an actor. Whatever he believes and whatever web sources he visits are inconsequential to the real-life situation depicted in The Sound of Freedom.
Tom Cruise and John Travolta are well-known advocates of the Church of Scientology. Does WaPo dwell on that in reviewing their movies? Mel Gibson, Clint Eastwood, Jon Voight, and Mark Wahlberg are unabashed Conservatives. Adam Sandler, Gary Sinise, Denzel Washington, and Kurt Russell are all known to lean Right. Morgan Freeman has repeatedly made “unwoke” statements about society and race. Generally speaking, none of this filters into critiques of their movies.
The plight of millions of children worldwide cannot be underscored. Huge numbers have been extracted from their families throughout Latin and South America, but the problem exists as well on other continents. Nonetheless, The Washington Post deliberately delves into the personal backgrounds of actors in seeking to demean the importance of the movie.
Who Are These Editors?
Who among executive editors at The Washington Post can attack while ignoring the vital, documented message that this movie imparts? While some embellishment happens in all movies, this horrendous worldwide phenomenon is and should upset the sensibilities of any responsible adult on the planet. As the box office takes streams past $100,000,000, WaPo seeks to chip away at the authenticity of the story and the solid and fruitful impact that it’s having on the nation.
In London, The Guardian has employed words such as paranoid, as in a “paranoid” look at this worldwide phenomenon. Who in their editorial department chose that phrase? In good consciousness, how can they opt to diminish the impact of the movie and dismiss the magnitude of this worldwide problem?
What drives these media gatekeepers to intentionally overlook the horror of six-year-olds being whisked away into a life that is beyond Hell, where they are abused by gross men, and sometimes women, as often as five to ten times a day, for ten years or more? No words suffice to describe this monumental sin of humankind.
More children have been abducted into sexual slavery today than the total number of slaves who existed when it was legal in the United States, Great Britain, and other parts of the world.
To What do They Object?
Do the media gatekeepers object to religious overtones in the movie? Protagonist Tim Ballard states, "God's children are not for sale.” If you don't believe in God, you can still conclude that children should not be for sale. Yes, some characters in the film wear religious crosses. Is that grounds to demean this film?
Some media sources have called Tim Ballard a “white savior” to children of color. Who the heck cares as long as some children are being saved? Would it matter if the hero was black, brown, red, or yellow? How petty and ignorant can one be? Displaying contempt for white male heroes as the global market for the bodies and souls of innocent children expands is beyond rationality. Can such editorial gatekeepers look at themselves in the mirror and say, “I did a good job?” I seriously doubt it.