I recently went to see the movie Sound Of Freedom with the expectation of a moderate level of political commentary or religious pontificating, given the rabid and widespread attacks on the film by the leftist media. All I knew going in was that the indie production was about child trafficking and that the mainstream media HATES IT. After the film was over, my first thought was that it was an excellent story about a very dark and difficult issue. My second thought was – “What the hell was all the fuss about? There’s not a single political moment in the entire movie!”
The media war on the low budget flick is so bizarre given this fact that I am immediately suspicious of their intentions. Not one political message, not one momentary critique of the political left, not one moment where MAGA or Trump or “Q-Anon” is mentioned, not one “conspiracy theory.” So why all the hate?
Before reading this review any further I highly recommend you check out some of the hatchet job articles published about Sound Of Freedom to get a sense of what I’m talking about – examples are here, here, here and here.
The first thing you’ll probably notice is that the majority of these vitriolic diatribes use the exact same talking points – They suggest that The Sound Of Freedom is based in conspiracy theory, far-right extremism and that it is funded by a subversive network of “Q-Anon adjacent” conservatives. Some journalists have even attacked the veracity of the film’s true story – the career of DHS agent Tim Ballard, who operated covertly to take down child sex traffickers in Central America.
The Guardian asserts:
“Caviezel stars as special agent Tim Ballard, a Homeland Security Investigations operative who really did work for the state busting up child-trafficking rings for more a decade. (Or so he claims – the DHS can neither confirm nor deny the real Ballard’s employment history.) Even if he did not literally have the face of Christ, Ballard would still exude an angelic aura as he gently hoists dirty-faced moppets out of peril with the gravely uttered catchphrase: “God’s children are not for sale.”
Rolling Stone fumes:
“Ballard, Caviezel, and others of their ilk had primed the public to accept Sound of Freedom as a documentary rather than delusion by fomenting moral panic for years over this grossly exaggerated “epidemic” of child sex-trafficking, much of it funneling people into conspiracist rabbit holes and QAnon communities. In short, I was at the movies with people who were there to see their worst fears confirmed.”
Perhaps Rolling Stone has never heard of Epstein’s Island? Why are they pretending like this global criminal enterprise is not a thing?
These reviews are dripping with venom, though a simple investigation into Tim Ballard reveals endless evidence that he did in fact quit his job at DHS to operate in Central America to stop child trafficking rings. And the sting that is the core of the film on an island Ballard set up as a trap to capture an entire network of pedophiles as well as save 120 kids? Yeah, that was real, too.
In fact, there’s a documentary about Tim Ballard’s successful sting called ‘Triple Take’ and the Sound Of Freedom movie includes real life arrest footage from that event. There is no question that almost every detail in Sound Of Freedom is real. Any media outlet that says otherwise is lying, and the fact that they are attempting to sow seeds of doubt about the legitimacy of Tim Ballard based on politics is villainous.
One interesting part of the the film that is NOT accurate was the depiction of a Latin billionaire funding Tim Ballard’s efforts. In reality, Ballard says that it was primarily conservative host Glenn Beck that raised money for his operations that led to the rescue of hundreds of children. Why Glenn Beck was not mentioned in the final cut of the film is hard to say, but Ballard’s connection to Beck might partly explain the media’s fury over the movie. How DARE these conservative men save children from sex slavery, right? It makes conservatives look like (GASP!) good guys.
But there’s something more going on here than mere envy on the part of leftist journalists. The campaign against the movie is far too coordinated and far too expansive (global). It is as if these people are interconnected and they all agreed together to try to subvert the film, or they were all ORDERED to subvert the film.
This kind of behavior suggests a personal stake in creating conditions for failure; it makes it seem like these journalists want to sabotage the movie because of its premise and message. Why would someone want to sabotage a movie which exposes child trafficking and pedophiles? Could it be that we need to check the hard drives of some of these establishment media writers and producers?
I think it’s important to note that such people have been criminally prosecuted for child sex abuse in the past. For example, long time CNN producer John Griffin was recently arrested and convicted of child rape, using online apps to connect with mothers willing to sell their children to him for thousands of dollars so he could abuse them at his Vermont vacation home.
Last year the FBI raided the home of renowned ABC News producer James Gordon Meek and arrested him on charges of transporting child pornography. Rolling Stone Magazine was later accused of trying to cover up the reason for the arrest with selective editing and omission. Rolling Stone is now one of the main outlets attacking Sound Of Freedom.
Maybe the movie makes these journalists angry because it exposes one of their favorite hobbies?
I’m a long time film buff and I can say with some authority that as a movie, Sound Of Freedom is well made and well executed. The overall acting is effective including Jim Caviezel's portrayal of Tim Ballard, the child performances are amazing, the editing is excellent and the cinematography is top notch. The film is good all around; it reminds me of one my favorite movies of all time, a criminal procedural directed by Akira Kurosawa called ‘High And Low’ (also known as ‘Heaven And Hell’ in Japan) about police investigating a child kidnapping.
My only complaint is that I felt they should have shown Tim Ballard with his family a little more, so that when he makes the decision to go to Colombia and risk his life, the choice carries more weight. Other than that, Sound Of Freedom is one of the best dramas I have seen in a long time, and at no point did I feel “preached at.” I can’t say the same for most Hollywood films the past several years, which are replete with non-stop leftist propaganda.
The depiction of the process of child trafficking is very uncomfortable, but it’s meant to be. I rarely squirm in my chair with discomfort or get angry at characters on a screen, but every time there was a scene with a pedophile all I could think was “That guy needs to go in a wood chipper.” That’s good film making.
So again, there are few if any valid criticisms to make about the production itself and the story is largely accurate. Why are leftist journalists raging against this movie? I think because it sheds light on the fact that pedophilia is not only about isolated cases of loners stalking school playgrounds, it’s an international industry worth billions upon billions of dollars, and there are very rich and powerful people involved in that industry (including people in mainstream journalism).
They don’t want people to consider the pervasive nature of this criminal underworld. They want people passive and unaware. For some reason, they want people to assume that child slavery is a conspiracy theory.
Another issue to consider is that the political left has been aggressively targeting children with sexualization for the past several years, primarily through the imposition of trans ideology. They are turning the sexualization of minors into an activist movement. Children as young as kindergarten are being indoctrinated with “gender identity” propaganda and HIGHLY pornographic books (with pornographic images) posing as educational LGBT content are being planted in public schools. We all know what the end game of this movement is – The normalization of pedophilia.
Leftists may be consciously or unconsciously hostile to Sound Of Freedom because when they see the organized networks of child groomers on the big screen, they see themselves.
To conclude: Go see this movie. The media attacks are clearly designed to dissuade people from watching it based on political bias. Check it out and you’ll realize quickly that all their claims are false. Furthermore, you’ll start to wonder aloud why they hate the film? The saying “Methinks thou dost protest too much…” comes to mind, as such journalists reveal their propensity for evil.
