Posted in: Politics

Angelina Jolie ‘Hates’ Barack Obama [Report]

Angelina Jolie supposedly hates Obama

A-List actress Angelina Jolie is reportedly not a fan of President Barack Obama, which puts her at odds with most of liberal Hollywood.

Commenting about Jolie’s opinion of the 44th president, an unnamed source cited by US Weekly flatly claims that “she hates him.”

The inside source added that “[Jolie is] into education and rehabilitation and thinks Obama is all about welfare and handouts. She thinks Obama is really a socialist in disguise. Angie isn’t Republican, but she thinks Obama is all smoke and mirrors.”

As it happens, left-wing intellectual/activist Noam Chomsky also used the “smoke and mirrors” terminology to describe the 2008 Barack Obama presidential campaign.

Angelina Jolie and her boyfriend, World War Z star Brad Pitt, who is reportedly still in Obama’s corner, “get into nasty arguments” about politics all the time, the insider further claimed.

As The Inquisitr reported earlier today, Brangelina will star together in a new film called By the Sea, which will be directed by Jolie. This will be first joint venture by the Hollywood power couple since 2005’s Mr. and Mrs. Smith, during which they famously fell in love.

Jolie’s dad, veteran actor Jon Voight, has become an outspoken Republican and Obama foe. Jolie has not in general made public statements per se about her political views, which can be a career-killer for others who are far less established in the industry and who hold to a conservative or libertarian philosophy.

Angelina Jolie has been a United Nations Goodwill Ambassador since 2001.

Many of Hollywood’s movers and shakers give millions of dollars to the Democrats, and Obama and other politicians regularly travel to southern California for big-ticket fundraisers.

President Obama has taken a lot of heat lately across the ideological spectrum for pursuing his business-as-usual campaign fundraising schedule with celebrities and one-percenters amidst international crises such as the shootdown of the Malaysian airliner and the Israeli ground invasion of Gaza. The president has attended 339 fundraising events to date.

The president also declined to visit the Rio Grande Valley border area to get a first-hand look at the illegal immigrant surge despite visiting Texas for fundraising events. As others have claimed, he seems to be more interested in spending time in the dining room rather than the situation room. The president has also reportedly to date played 176 rounds of golf since he took office.

Do you think it’s plausible that Angelina Jolie really hates President Obama?

[image via cinemafestival / Shutterstock.com]

Articles And Offers From The Web

Comments

17 Responses to “Angelina Jolie ‘Hates’ Barack Obama [Report]”

  1. James Peron

    Actually, the history of libertarians in Hollywood is significantly better than conservatives in Hollywood. Hollywood wants profits, so they like markets in that sense, but they are particularly concerned about freedom of expression and social freedom. In that sense libertarians and liberals are both the enemies of conservatism.

  2. Brent Michael Haskin

    I really wish she would have played Dagny Taggart in the Atlas Shrugged Movies.

  3. TJ Traci Smith

    I really hope this is true, it would be nice to see some A-listers finally realizing what a total self-absorbed president we have, someone who is suppose to be looking out for the people, but instead chooses to fund raise and appear on as many talk shows as he can get. It's disgusting really. I'm ashamed to be an American at this point in time.

  4. John Tischio

    Jolie is into education and rehabilitation and thinks Obama is all about welfare and handouts.Geeze,what happened to "Change You Can believe in)!

  5. Jeffrey L Rainforth

    lmao. a necro article. Jolie said that 5 years ago, lol.

  6. Anonymous

    i have always loved this kid! She obviously has great insight and a lot of common sense – more than her counterpart and the other hollywood idiots. Good for her. If you stand for nothing, you'll fall for anything and this woman has courage and the ability to get a message out. I looked for her previous movie on Chechnya, but couldn't find it anywhere. One of her politically undertoned movies I did enjoy was "Doctors without borders". You go, Angie.

  7. Mary Luther Pipkin

    She would have been an awesome choice for that role

  8. Nanette Hallman Price

    this is from 2009 and it was wrong than……………….It was a pretty milquetoast, evasive answer, and perhaps one that was borne out of being stung by her words in the past. In 2009, it was reported that Jolie was a reluctant supporter of Obama and called him a "one-term President." Jolie took issue with that when it was brought up by the Caller.

    "Reported by who? By Us Weekly?" she asked. "You gotta read better papers."

    In fact, it was Fox News that was the source of that story; they cited "insiders" who said Jolie was disappointed with Obama's supposed disinterest in issues happening around the world.

  9. Joey Crowe

    That would be nice to believe. An American president being a capitalist. That would be awesome. Unfortunately that isn't true. I don't think he likes the free enterprise system very much except when he can graft onto it.

  10. Joey Crowe

    That depends on what is being 'conserved' and what you mean when you say 'social freedom'. Some of the divisiveness is this false idea that you must agree 100% with one party or the other and that you can't judge each issue on a case-by-case basis.

    There are democrats for gun freedom, republicans for gay marriage, liberals who are none-the-less pro-life, conservatives who are none-the-less for amnesty.

    It is human nature to simplify things, then over-simplify them. There are some who do so when they make their political beds.

    Libertarians run the gamut from Glenn Beck – ardent capitalist – to the violent anarchists who steal your car because they don't believe in property rights or laws of any kind. Since libertarianism is nuanced (intentionally, perhaps) it is important to note subtle-but-important distinctions.

    I am not only not an 'anarchist' by modern libertarian language, anyway, but in fact I am in absolute opposition to such a juvenile system that espouses violence for violence sake, and utter lawlessness as an ideal and disregards all social agreements as to legitimate vs. illigitimate authority. Also, I believe in merit-based systems, but am not so foolish to think that all who are rewarded have been rewarded by merit alone. I am not engaging in dichotomic, polemic and illogical thinking here in which a person who has benefitted from a merit-based system must have therefore, de facto have been 'priviliged'. That would be sociolinguistical quackquackquackery about invisible camping gear, e.g. nonsense and Ingsoc doubletalk stemming from a lack of serious inquiry and appeals to dubious authorities.

    Contrast that view with 'middle-road' 'anarchist-libertarians' who are quasi-socialist in nature but contained within a more conservative sense of 'volunteerism' in which government (which they merely pretend doesn't exist in their idealism) exists solely at the discretion of the governed (ah, sweet-sounding dream). Their claims to local authority are so narrowly defined by their theoretical volunteer-mindedness that they are not truly anarchists at all. Unfortunately, I have to dismiss their ideal as perhaps not as new as they think it to be. The social contract they speak of would actually continue to grow until it reached a federal level, has no real statements as to what sort of foreign policy could possibly stem from it, and the lack of a merit-based system can only be supported, as far as I understand it, by some sort of soft fascism (as always, called something a little more marketable).

    And when I call myself an anarchist (a term I now avoid), I merely mean that I don't want a despotic dictator with totalitarian control of all branches of government ruling over my country like a tyrant who, having absorbed that power refuses to use it for the good of the country, takes no stand in its defense or welfare and abdicates all authority to the whims of his Marxist anti-intellectual heroes. I don't hate the man, just most of everything he stands for, but I digress.

    Hollywood seems like a politically fascist place. I find it very hard to believe that conservatives are that few in number among people whose very lives are dedicated to individualist expressions of life, which is the core of conservative-libertarianism.