Brad Pitt’s Mom Blasts Obama
I don’t really care about the political views of celebrities anymore. They are mostly predictable and rather ignorant. But this one caught my attention. Granted, Mom Pitt isn’t exactly a celebrity. But still…
Actor Brad Pitt and his fiancée, Angelina Jolie, will be likely be at odds with his mother, Jane Pitt, concerning her comments in a pro-Christian, anti-Obama, anti-gay marriage letter to The Springfield News-Leader of Springfield, Mo.
According to The Blaze , Pitt slams President Obama as a man who “sat in Jeremiah Wright’s church for years”, ignored the National Day of Prayer and as someone who supports “the killing of unborn babies and same-sex marriage” and suggests practicing Christians shouldn’t vote for him.
She openly supports Mitt Romney despite his Mormonism, saying: “I think any Christian should spend much time in prayer before refusing to vote for a family man with high morals, business experience, who is against abortion, and shares Christian conviction concerning homosexuality just because he is a Mormon.”
The actor once declared that he and Jolie would not marry until gay marriage is legalized countrywide. They have yet to wed.
Momma Pitt sounds like a firecracker.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
33 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
@Bruce.
Yes. Momma Pitt sure is a firecracker. Not only does she oppose same-sex marriage, but she opposes homosexuality due to her “Christian convictions.” She doesn’t want you to live in sin with your (male) partner. She would be thrilled to hear that you have “renounced your homosexuality.”
She would undoubtedly agree with a federal ban on all same-sex marriages, which Romney has promised he will sign into law, with the help of a Republican congress.
But hey. She hates Obama, so it’s all good. I’m sure she would love to be your new best friend!
(She might be able to get you a discount into an “ex-gay” therapy. She doesn’t hate homosexuals like you. She just hates your sin).
Comment by James — July 6, 2012 @ 5:40 pm - July 6, 2012
Angelina Jolie´s father, Jon Voight is unabashedly a conservative. He has been a guest on several of Fox News Network Shows.
Comment by Roberto — July 6, 2012 @ 5:55 pm - July 6, 2012
What James said.
Comment by Cinesnatch — July 6, 2012 @ 6:38 pm - July 6, 2012
What a great scheme to keep banging a chick without making a commitment.
Comment by V the K — July 6, 2012 @ 6:56 pm - July 6, 2012
While I am a conservative (more libertarian/fiscal conservative than social conservative), I don’t exactly hold with some of her views (I honestly have no problems with gay marriage-honestly I would rather see marriage encouraged for all relationships).
I think what is interesting is given Pitt’s political views I wonder if he and his mother talk politics.
Comment by Just Me — July 6, 2012 @ 7:43 pm - July 6, 2012
Pitt and Jolie relented to their childrn’s wishes and are engaged.
Comment by Cinesnatch — July 6, 2012 @ 7:50 pm - July 6, 2012
James @1:
So what?
Comment by Bastiat Fan — July 6, 2012 @ 7:54 pm - July 6, 2012
I am trying to imagine what it’s like to be such a pathetic loser that the opinion of Brad Pitt’s mother impacts how I feel about myself.
Vince? James? Little help?
Comment by V the K — July 6, 2012 @ 10:00 pm - July 6, 2012
And yet, James, you and your fellow tolerant Obama supporters are the ones posting things like this about us, wanting us dead based on our political affiliation, and telling us to kill ourselves.
And that leads us to this.
Quelle surprise.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 6, 2012 @ 10:22 pm - July 6, 2012
So, James. aside from your homosexual lust, are you otherwise free from sin?
I ask, because I do not have homosexual lust, but I fight sin daily. If we Christians drop the homosexual lust clause, will you be as good as or better than Jesus? Promise?
Or, James, do you need the homosexual lust clause so that you can sin away in other areas and play the victim card to cover it? Just asking….
Comment by heliotrope — July 6, 2012 @ 10:33 pm - July 6, 2012
Please, Helio, explain how you discerned from James’ post that he was insinuating he is somehow above sin.
Comment by Cinesnatch — July 6, 2012 @ 11:46 pm - July 6, 2012
Please, Cinetwat, explain how you can agree with James’s ASSertions based on nothing but speculation? What’s valid about his comment that you choose to take it as your own?
Or is it just totally cool because he’s being an ass and venting his spleen about Christians? I know how much you dig being an ass.
Comment by TGC — July 7, 2012 @ 3:03 am - July 7, 2012
If she was purported to support abortion, same-sex unions, and Obama, Bruce wouldn’t be posting about this or calling her a “firecracker.” Bruce took her words to be true, so please direct most of your questions to him (“nothing but speculation”). James’ response was to Bruce’s assumptions that they were true. And, like James, I find it unfortunate that an openly gay man would be praising a woman who is against same-sex unions. I repeat, I find that sad and unfortunate that a gay man would be publicly condoning a woman who is purported to be against same-sex mariage. Nothing else. Only sad and unfortunate. As there are pro-capitalist women out there who are FOR same-sex unions. Bruce might stand to praise some of them.
And, since YOU brought it up, I don’t dig being an ass, but I do dig ass.
Toodles, THAT GAY CONSERVATIVE!
Comment by Cinesnatch — July 7, 2012 @ 3:58 am - July 7, 2012
Actually, Cinesnatch, you’re just a little whiner who is looking for excuses to act out your jealousy and hatred of Bruce and Dan.
You and James are bigots. We understand that. You are irrational, hate-filled bigots who cannot tolerate anyone else disagreeing with you, and especially in regard to the minority status that you want to use so desperately as a substitute for character.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 7, 2012 @ 9:32 am - July 7, 2012
Well, duh.
Seriously. You think your observation there is remotely meaningful, much less intelligent? The point of Bruce’s post was to highlight somebody that he either agreed with, or at least found interesting. You seriously think that Bruce is supposed to write posts about people whom he personally finds disagreeable and/or boring?
Oh, but we know you do, Cinesnatch. Being an ass is part of the process by which you progressively make each and every thread about yourself. Watch – you’ll keep going, here.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 7, 2012 @ 9:36 am - July 7, 2012
The letter was about not being prejudiced about a mormon.
How you dissect the samesex marriage portion and make it all about that is somehow pathetic…
It is an invite to bigoted people (for once the non-mormons) not to have prejudices.
I believe the atheist population is far more prejudiced against religious ppl than the other way around
Comment by susan — July 7, 2012 @ 10:30 am - July 7, 2012
Zing.
Comment by V the K — July 7, 2012 @ 10:31 am - July 7, 2012
just because he is a Mormon. . .
Mom Pitt gets to say pretty much what she wants to.
Don’t agree with it but hey she certainly is continuing the SSM conversation. . .
Comment by rusty — July 7, 2012 @ 12:00 pm - July 7, 2012
So, Susan, you are saying that a bunch of gay drama queens took an article that was only tangentially about gay marriage and made it ALL ABOUT THEM?
Wow, didn’t see that coming,
Comment by V the K — July 7, 2012 @ 12:54 pm - July 7, 2012
Your secret is safe with yourself then.
Comment by TGC — July 7, 2012 @ 3:44 pm - July 7, 2012
Once … just once … I’d like to see someone who opposes gay marriage on religious grounds get up and quote Matthew 5:32, Matthew 19:9 or Luke 16:18 and demand that all those “adulterous” heterosexuals who are remarried have their marriage licenses stripped from them.
Sorry, but you don’t repent of a divorce by marrying your mistress. I’m talkin’ to you, Newt (and his supporters!).
What do you think the reaction of these remarried heterosexuals would be? “Oh, that’s not hateful. They’re just principled people. Good for them”
Riiiiiight.
Comment by James K — July 7, 2012 @ 3:56 pm - July 7, 2012
#21 If you don’t see it, does that mean it doesn’t happen?
Comment by TGC — July 8, 2012 @ 5:07 am - July 8, 2012
Then you’re a hypocrite, because you oppose religious faith, believe that religious faith should not affect civil marriage, and thus refuse to follow your own standards by making that statement.
When you exhibit moral standards yourself and hold other gays and lesbians to them, then you can talk. But since you won’t and don’t, your trying to do so to others only shows what pathetic, hateful, bigoted scum you are.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 8, 2012 @ 2:11 pm - July 8, 2012
Go, Mama Pitt!
Comment by Seane-Anna — July 8, 2012 @ 4:51 pm - July 8, 2012
James K @21, the real thrust of your comment seems to be that opposing gay marriage is hateful and that “fact” would become obvious if SSM opponents started opposing marriage licenses for divorced-and-remarried heterosexuals. Am I right? If so, then I offer you a counter challenge. I’ve read here on GayPatriot many supporters of SSM voicing their opposition to polygamy and insisting that legalizing gay marriage won’t open the door to legalizing plural marriage. James K, do you unthinkingly assume that gays who oppose plural marriage do so out of hate? If not, if you concede that such opposition to polygamy is, for the most part, based on principle, then why do you assign hatred as the ONLY motive anyone can have for opposing SSM? In other words, why can a gay person support restrictions on who can marry whom without being a “hater” but a straight person can’t? Please explain.
Comment by Seane-Anna — July 8, 2012 @ 5:02 pm - July 8, 2012
Also James K, while the biblical passages you quote deal with divorce and its consequences they do NOT alter the definition of marriage. Marriage is still strictly defined as a heterosexual union. The only question in the cited passages is the legality or permissibility of marriage under certain circumstances. So no, these passages do NOT undermine a religious objection to gay marriage. Sorry.
Comment by Seane-Anna — July 8, 2012 @ 5:14 pm - July 8, 2012
It seems to me that while we still have 1st Amendment protections in American, all people should express their opinions if they wish to do so. While I find her beliefs at odds with my own views, I don’t feel threatened enough to silence her. People on both sides of any issue used to be free to air their opinions without fear of death threats and assault. Now, evidently, only one side may speak freely and the other must pounded into silence.
Worst of all about this story–for me, anyway–is when did we become a country that abuses and intimidates elderly women? Why aren’t we mature enough, tolerant enough, that this story isn’t simply just another blip on the radar?
Comment by aine — July 10, 2012 @ 6:05 pm - July 10, 2012
It seems you are the excpetion that proves the rule, aine. The hard part is being that lone voice of dissent.
(aside, I saw an interesting experiment of human psychology yesterday. Woman was coming out of the treatment area at my doctor’s office. She was having trouble with the door, due to age an infirmity. No one in the full waiting room did anything, until I got up, crossed the length of the room, opened and held the door for her. Then a couple people right next to the door noticed her plight and held the other door open for her. I mean what the frak people?)
Comment by The_Livewire — July 11, 2012 @ 1:12 pm - July 11, 2012
[...] week, Bruce posted on the sudden notoriety of Brad Pitt’s mother. Yesterday, Michelle Malkin came to her [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Why the choice to slur prominent opponents of gay marriage? — July 12, 2012 @ 2:50 pm - July 12, 2012
To me, Mrs. Pitt just sounds like anybody’s mother who likes to loudly voice poorly thought out and offensive political views.
At best, her point was “I disagree with both Obama and Romney theologically, but Romney has better policies” and she just expressed the thought poorly.
At worst, she’s just throwing a bunch of catch phrases out there. What does the fact that Romney has “business experience” have to do with Christian values? Why does Romney get the “family man” designation but Obama doesn’t?
According to Snopes, most Presidents, haven’t marked the national day of prayer with an event.
Honestly, even if you agree with her conclusion that Romney’s the better candidate, the fact that she agrees with you does not make her letter useful or thought-provoking.
Comment by Christopher — July 13, 2012 @ 12:32 am - July 13, 2012
Thank you D & B for a great blog! It is great because you are so fair minded and unafraid to be independent voices in an era of hostile public discourse. Good on you. I may not agree with you on all issues, but I imagine we could have a friendly convo unlike some of the silliness just because you posted something “positive” about someone who disagrees with you on an issue. Regardless of her opinions, I think Mrs. Pitt sounds like a firecracker too.
Comment by Kikashi — July 13, 2012 @ 4:18 am - July 13, 2012
Gay Patriot please stop calling this website “the Internet home for the gay conservative”. Call yourself a libertarian. Even a Republican. But not a conservative.
I think you’re for “gay marriage” because you’re a liberal and believe in feminism. Not even in the Ancient world, with gay warriors, did they believe in “gay marriage”. Marriage was about duty, God, society, reproduction, status, power and whatnot. It wasn’t about “love”. It wasn’t feminist. It was patriarchal.
I give it you’ve never heard of the manosphere? Men against feminism? Marriage has been ruined by feminism and people only think of it as a fun sex toy.
Comment by Cynthia — July 13, 2012 @ 6:46 pm - July 13, 2012
Cynthia: what??? There are multiple kinds of conservatives. Gay marriage isn’t the defining issue of conservatism. And I don’t know what feminism has to do with anything. I’m guessing the bloggers here are not supportive of feminism.
Comment by Rattlesnake — July 13, 2012 @ 7:02 pm - July 13, 2012