We may not have Sebastian Stan around for long.

After all, the “Apprentice” alum just took President Donald Trump to task at the Cannes Film Festival. And, as we all know, the president loves nothing more than locking up actors who speak out against his regime.

Here’s a full list of the celebrities currently rotting in Trump’s gulag for defying his reign.

Oh, wait.

Stars have spent the last decade raging against Trump. Some wished him dead. Others pushed endless lies about him.

None has suffered as a result of their words, at least not by Trump’s hands. Kathy Griffin endured professional cancellation after she shared a ghoulish image of Trump’s bloody head for all to see.

That was common decency kicking in, nothing more (or less).

More recently, Trump critic Stephen Colbert learned his “Late Show” gig will expire on May 21. Did Herr Trump get ’em?

No. The show’s $40 million a year losses did the trick.

Yet star after star insists we’re living in unprecedented times and that by calling out Trump, they’re putting their careers and freedom in jeopardy.

Hogwash. This is a PG-rated outlet, after all.

Now, it’s Stan’s turn to play the Victim.

The actor, speaking at a press conference for his upcoming film “Fjord,” trotted out the usual misinformation to attack Trump’s America.

“I think we’re in a really, really bad place. I really do. And to be honest with you, when you’re looking at what’s happening, right — if we’re talking about the consolidation of the media, censorship, threats, the supposed lawsuits that seemingly never end but don’t actually go anywhere. You know, the writing was on the wall. We encountered all that with the movie.”

He, of course, brought up Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel as fellow free speech martyrs. Kimmel endured a one-week suspension last year after he lied to his audience about the person allegedly responsible for Charlie Kirk’s 2025 murder.

An affiliate revolt sparked the suspension, but Kimmel was back several days later without having apologized for the misinformation. He later signed a year-long contract extension with ABC.

Few dictators are as incompetent as Trump, apparently.

This part must still be said.

President Trump will often bloviate about punishing his critics for their words. It’s an awful tic, one that’s deeply unpresidential and an anathema to free speech.

And, as we’ve learned over the past decade, it’s all talk and zero action.

In fact, President Trump has been far more generous with free speech than his predecessor. Team Biden used social media to punish wrongthink, attempted to create a disinformation czar and targeted concerned parents who objected to the teachings at their local schools.

So no, Stan doesn’t have to worry about being snatched up by the secret police anytime soon. He can rage against President Trump early and often.

And after a few more years of doing that sans punishment, maybe he’ll learn to regret his fear-mongering shtick.

UPDATE: Even Kimmel knows his faux free speech martyr status is a joke. Here, he yuks it up with the suddenly anti-Trump “South Park” creators about their attacks on the president.

“Why aren’t you guys in a gulag somewhere, like, shackled down in a basement?” Jimmy Kimmel asked South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone, alluding to the animated show’s constant attacks on Trump, including repeatedly depicting the president naked with a micro-penis.

The post ‘Censored’ Artists Can’t Stop Slamming Trump appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

WHAT'S IN A NAME?

What do you call an economic system that's neither a free-market economy with a small state and light-handed regulation, nor a state-owned economy run by bureaucratic, politically-driven trading departments -- it's neither, sometimes both, but mostly a mongrel grab-bag of bits from small govt and large. They're wrestling with that question in the UK at the minute -- and we could just as easily ask the same question here:

Of course the Greens, TPM and parts of Labour will say t[that New Zealand] is under the oppressive yoke of neo-liberalism, and their latest scapegoat "billionaires" and "foreign capital"; and, of course, people like me will rail against the "commie kids" on the left in Parliament and in local government, but [in truth] there's little real evidence of NZ embarking on [either] Douglas/Richardson Mk. 2 or becoming the DDR ....

It's not to say the Douglas/Richardson ... reforms have been unwound. New Zealand isn't returning to rampant protectionism, nor has Labour embarked on vast re-nationalisation ... ["but hold my beer!" says Winston], but what has happened is an accretion of central command and control.

The system of interventionism or of the hampered market economy differs from the German [i.e., the Nazi] pattern of socialism by the very fact that it is still a market economy. The authority interferes with the operation of the market economy, but does not want to eliminate the market altogether. It wants production and consumption to develop along lines different from those prescribed by an unhampered market, and it wants to achieve its aim by injecting into the working of the market orders, commands, and prohibitions.

When you text your doctor, share your location with a rideshare app, or use your credit card at checkout, you aren’t broadcasting your private life to the world. You’re sharing specific information, for a specific purpose, with a specific party you’ve chosen to trust—usually under terms of service that promise to keep it confidential. You know this. Your service provider knows this. The only institution in America that pretends not to know this is the federal government, armed with a legal doctrine the Supreme Court erroneously expanded almost fifty years ago.

That doctrine is the third-party doctrine. The Court now has a chance to return it to its original and proper scope in the case Chatrie v. United States, which it is currently considering after oral argument last month. It should seize that chance.

Dragnet searches and Supreme Court precedent

In 2019, the government obtained a “geofence warrant”—a demand that Google hand over location data on every user whose phone happened to be near the scene of a bank robbery.

Not a suspect. Not a person connected to the crime by evidence. Every person in the area.

Google searched its entire Sensorvault database—hundreds of millions of accounts—and produced the results. Okello Chatrie was among them.

The government relied on the third-party doctrine to justify this dragnet search. The doctrine was dramatically expanded without justification in two 1970s cases, United States v. Miller and Smith v. Maryland. Their holding was disarming in its simplicity and devastating in its consequences: if you share information with a third party, you forfeit any “reasonable expectation of privacy” in that information. It doesn’t matter that you shared it for a limited purpose or that your service provider contractually promised to protect it. In the eyes of the law, you might as well have shouted it through a megaphone, from the highest mountaintop, on worldwide livestream.

This was always a dubious proposition, but in the digital age, it’s absurd. Your phone continuously communicates with cell towers. Your search queries exist in databases. Your emails and messages pass through servers. To claim that all of this information is fair game for warrantless government access simply because a service provider processes or stores it is to say that the Fourth Amendment has nothing to offer the twenty-first century.

Read the rest at the PLF blog.

It’s easy to spot liberal media bias in 2026. Heck, we’re soaking in it.

Most headlines all but scream it, skewering Republicans and giving Democrats a pass.

There’s even a popular meme on the subject. When progressives behave badly, the media will frame the story as “Republicans pounce/and or seize.”

You can set your clock to it.

The New York Times just stealth edited their “Republicans pounce” article after insane blowback pic.twitter.com/0hhFDVhX6l

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) February 9, 2024

POLITICO DID THE MEME!! Yes, this is a real headline and the comments were GLORIOUS https://t.co/GNqHnhX1bN

— Not the Bee (@Not_the_Bee) July 25, 2024

NEW: Republicans pounce on ailing markets to criticize Biden https://t.co/WlmzqH06Xu pic.twitter.com/FSRcUWSss0

— The Hill (@thehill) September 29, 2022

HAWORTH: The Media’s Latest Use Of ‘Republicans Pounce’ Crossed A Line https://t.co/aHdpwIYo4R pic.twitter.com/HSrcvOnyYS

— Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) September 16, 2020

Perhaps the biggest example of extreme media bias came all the way back in 2017.

RELATED:

GOODBYE STEPHEN COLBERT: LET THEM EAT CAKE

GOODBYE STEPHEN COLBERT: A RARE MOMENT OF COMEDY

GOODBYE STEPHEN COLBERT: THE C*** HOLSTER CRACK

GOODBYE STEPHEN COLBERT: THE VAX SCENE CRINGE FEST 

The Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Va. featured a group of tiki torch bearing bigots screaming, “they will not replace us.” The gathering also involved a controversial statue of Robert E. Lee that some wanted to pull down for good.

It was ugly, full stop. And, as we recently learned, it may have been partially fueled by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Either way, President Donald Trump spoke about the event after a protester hit and killed a woman with his car.

Trump said there were “very fine people on both sides” of the debate. That meant  those who gathered to remove a controversial statue or to keep it standing for historical reasons.

He didn’t mean the neo Nazis who slithered around the protests, spreading hate in their wake. How do we know that? Because he literally said so.

“And I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White Supremacists, who should be condemned totally.”

Yet the media and many Democrats (but we repeat ourselves) insisted Trump meant the neo Nazis were “very fine people.”

A media hoax unlike any other was born. And boy, did it have legs. Future President Joe Biden used the lie to launch his 2020 campaign.

It took the progressive Snopes seven years to set the record straight on the matter. Seven. Years.

Snopes FINALLY debunked the 2017 “Very Fine People” hoax, and HOO BOY are the leftists madhttps://t.co/NiVbr7Q3W7

— Not the Bee (@Not_the_Bee) June 24, 2024

Better insanely late than never. Gee, why would Snopes drag its feet on this particular fact check?

Either way, anyone with a healthy news diet knows it’s a lie, and a despicable one at that.

Does that explain why Colbert repeated it … LAST YEAR?

“For the record, Trump did not come up with ‘America first.’ ‘America first’ was the motto of Nazi-friendly Americans in the 1930s … Trump wasn’t Nazi-friendly until 2017,” Colbert said, before mimicking the president’s voice saying, you guessed it, “very fine people.”

No lie is too big, apparently, for the far-Left host. It’s one more reason Colbert won’t be missed on late-night TV.

The post Goodbye, Stephen Colbert: Bringing ‘Very Fine People’ Hoax Back appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.