WaPo: Harvey Weinstein Helped Pay the Clinton’s Legal Bills

Once I saw the headline, I remembered: Harvey Weinstein was one of those Hollywood liberals who helped the Clintons cover their legal bills in the 90’s, and the Washington Post was the outlet that broke it.

Yes, the ironic fakenews bourgeoisie is sharing a WaPo story. Not really “in the tank” after all. Especially now, with all the attention Weinstein is getting lately. It’s been fairly easy to throw a stick and hit another Harvey story, so there’s no point in belaboring the topic. However, the story does remind the electorate how deep the Clinton’s network was built over the years. Over the years, Bill and Hillary Clinton have received nearly $30,000 in donations from Weinstein.

Of course, Harvey wasn’t alone. The Clinton Legal Defense fund, established in Arkansas by Clinton family friend David Pryor, saw over 17,000 donors, 62 of which gave the maximum $10,000. It was a list of who’s who, including Tom Hanks, Barbra Streisand, Michael Douglas, Ron Howard, Norman Lear, Steven Spielberg and Kate Capshaw-Spielberg as well as studio executives Jeffrey Katzenberg, David Geffen, and Weinstein. By law, the operation was not allowed to solicit donations, but was promoted heavily at the time through Hollywood circles. The fund was closed in 1997, leaving the Clintons with more than $3 million in outstanding legal expenses.

It was a nice thought while it lasted. And apparently, it attracted some tawdry characters with it.

“Birds of a feather,” you might say.

 

 

Stanford Rape Culture Victim Wants Vengeance, Not Justice

Sentencing Turner to prison would be nothing but simple retribution, turning the tables on him: How does it feel to be raped, frat boy?

Two strangers get drunk at a college party–blitzed out of their minds–and walk off to places unknown. The guy is thinking with the small brain located between his legs, a one-track mind. The girl has checked out, and goes unconscious. It’s only when someone walks up behind the dumpster that he suddenly fears what he’s done.

He knows it’s wrong–really, really wrong–but he’s not thinking. She ceased thinking the minute she started throwing back shots one after the other at what she called “a dumb party.”

I’ve tried to stay away from Stanford’s Brock Turner and his rape victim. Liberals highlight this case as everything that’s wrong with the white, check-your-privilege frat brother rape culture. They take an actual rape and apply it to what LA Times writer Meghan Daum calls the “rape accusation culture.”

If you don’t recognize rape accusation culture, look up what happened at Vassar, where a freshman was expelled after being accused of rape a full year after having sex with a woman who’d given no indication at the time that the encounter was anything but consensual. Look up what happened at Brandeis, where a student accused his former boyfriend of sexual misconduct over their two-year relationship, including good morning kisses that were deemed nonconsensual because the kissed party was half-asleep.

Turner received a very lenient sentence of six months in the county jail, versus the 14 years in a California prison he could have gotten. This sparked a backlash against Judge Aaron Persky, with some calling for him to be removed from the bench.

Obviously, Persky had some sympathy for Turner, even in the face of his victim’s poignant, 7000-word letter published by Buzzfeed. I think I can see why.

The night after it happened, he said he didn’t know my name, said he wouldn’t be able to identify my face in a lineup, didn’t mention any dialogue between us, no words, only dancing and kissing. Dancing is a cute term; was it snapping fingers and twirling dancing, or just bodies grinding up against each other in a crowded room? I wonder if kissing was just faces sloppily pressed up against each other? When the detective asked if he had planned on taking me back to his dorm, he said no. When the detective asked how we ended up behind the dumpster, he said he didn’t know. He admitted to kissing other girls at that party, one of whom was my own sister who pushed him away. He admitted to wanting to hook up with someone. I was the wounded antelope of the herd, completely alone and vulnerable, physically unable to fend for myself, and he chose me. Sometimes I think, if I hadn’t gone, then this never would’ve happened. But then I realized, it would have happened, just to somebody else. You were about to enter four years of access to drunk girls and parties, and if this is the foot you started off on, then it is right you did not continue. The night after it happened, he said he thought I liked it because I rubbed his back. A back rub.

In that one phrase, “it would have happened, just to somebody else,” the victim put on cement overshoes and dashed herself over the cliff into the ocean. Her attacker was a rapist before he even went to the party. He was a rapist when he got up that morning. He was a rapist when he was born because he’s a male.

Not every man who gets slap drunk takes a slap drunk strange woman behind the dumpster to copulate. But in any given situation, if you put fifty teenage and early twenty-something attractive couples in a room and get them blitzed, at least one couple is going to leave the room for some dark place and get busy.

Stanford has one of the most comprehensive sexual assault prevention programs in the country. Freshmen are inculcated in this as part of their orientation. Task forces, handouts, and the “Office of Sexual Assault & Relationship Abuse” (SARA) exist to reduce the occurrence of unwanted sexual activity and rape on campus. But none of that can stop two drunk kids from being unbelievably stupid.

What would 14 years in prison do to prevent Turner from becoming a repeat offender? Nothing. It would in fact be simple retribution. Prison rape is common, so sentencing Turner to prison would be nothing but turning the tables on him: How does it feel to be raped, frat boy?

Turner’s statement to the judge highlights his personal torture. Certainly, one might think he’s only sorry because he was caught. Certainly, how could he ever prove his remorse, short of submitting to becoming a victim of prison rape? But that doesn’t mean he’s not genuinely tortured and guilt-ridden. Here’s an excerpt:

I would give anything to change what happened that night. I can never forgive myself for imposing trauma and pain on [redacted]. It debilitates me to think that my actions have caused her emotional and physical stress that is completely unwarranted and unfair. The thought of this is in my head every second of every day since this event has occurred. These ideas never leave my mind. During the day, I shake uncontrollably from the amount I torment myself by thinking about what has happened. I wish I had the ability to go back in time and never pick up a drink that night, let alone interact with [redacted]. I can barely hold a conversation with someone without having my mind drift into thinking these thoughts. They torture me.

But let’s have a thought experiment. What if Turner finished his act, and those grad students never walked up on him. Is it possible that he could have experienced the same guilt and remorse if he had not have been caught? Or is he a monster? Yes, he had a previous arrest for underage drinking, and yes he had gotten himself into a drinking, drug, hook-up culture. Do those make him a monster? (If so, look at your own past and ask yourself the same questions.)

One decision has the potential to change your entire life. I know I can impact and change people’s attitudes towards the culture surrounded by binge drinking and sexual promiscuity that protrudes through what people think is at the core of being a college student. I want to demolish the assumption that drinking and partying are what make up a college lifestyle I made a mistake, I drank too much, and my decisions hurt someone. But I never ever meant to intentionally hurt [redacted]. My poor decision making and excessive drinking hurt someone that night and I wish I could just take it all back.

I don’t believe Turner’s statement “I never meant to intentionally hurt [his victim].” At the point where he had enough consciousness to pull down her panties and pull out his own member, he intended to hurt her because she was incapable of anything at that point. But he missed the part that saves him. They both made a mistake that night.

Both he and his victim made decisions that changed their lives. They both drank too much. They both wish they could take it all back.

In less than six months, Turner will be out of jail (if his sentence is not reconsidered for political reasons), and he will be watched closely to see if his commitment to fight the party culture is genuine. While Turner will always be judged by society to be a rapist, his victim can safely claim he would be a rapist even if she wasn’t a victim. That’s not fair.

“Alcohol is not an excuse. Is it a factor? Yes. But alcohol was not the one who stripped me, fingered me, had my head dragging against the ground, with me almost fully naked,” the victim wrote. “Having too much to drink was an amateur mistake that I admit to, but it is not criminal.” So Turner’s amateur mistake should lead to him being raped in prison, because she made the same mistake. That’s vengeance, not justice.

Turner was convicted and sentenced. He will never achieve the dreams he entered college with. If he spends the remainder of his life being an example of where the alcohol-soaked party culture leads, is that not worth more than him receiving the vengeance for a thousand drunk college kids who got away with it?

Judge Persky seems to think so.

Crony Capitalist Donald Trump Doesn’t Mind People Trumping Bathroom Privacy

During a presidential town hall event on NBC’s Today this morning, Donald Trump said transgendered individuals have the right to use any restroom they want.

“Oh, I had a feeling that question was going to come up, I will tell you. North Carolina did something that was very strong. And they’re paying a big price. There’s a lot of problems,” said Trump. “Leave it the way it is. North Carolina, what they’re going through with all the business that’s leaving, all of the strife — and this is on both sides. Leave it the way it is.”

“There have been very few complaints the way it is. People go. They use the bathroom that they feel is appropriate,” Trump said. “There has been so little trouble. And the problem with what happened in North Carolina is the strife and the economic — I mean, the economic punishment that they’re taking.”

I wonder how soon Trump will change his position on this issue as he did with abortion…Time will tell.

Like other answers on important issues, Donald Trump demonstrates he has a vague understanding of policies, their nuances, and their ramifications. He clearly doesn’t pay attention to detail nor has he taken principled positions unless they become profitable for him or win him points among voters.

Trump once again demonstrates he doesn’t know the issue at hand

Donald Trump has demonstrated he lacks the intellectual fortitude to comprehend and speak clearly about important policy issues. Remember when he switched his position on abortion five times over the course of three days? Expect him to do the same with this issue.

With respect to this North Carolina bill, he demonstrates laziness on the issue by failing to grasp the nuances surrounding it. The so-called “controversial” gender-restrictive bathroom bill, or H.B. 2, was signed into law by North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory (R) in late March after it passed in the North Carolina House by a 83-25 vote and in the Senate by a 32-0 vote. The bill does not ban gender neutral bathrooms. Instead, it permits localities to put gender-restrictive bathroom bans in place.

Ryan T. Anderson of Heritage Foundation recently set the record straight on the bill regarding what it seeks to accomplish:

First, it says that private schools, restaurants, stores, and businesses are free to establish whatever bathroom policies they’d like, but that access to government bathrooms will be determined primarily by biological sex.

Second, it says that North Carolina will have one set of regulations for the entire state when it comes to employment and public accommodation, rather than additional piecemeal regulations city by city.

Trump is a crony capitalist, so he’s fine with any form of cronyism

The Donald said North Carolina will suffer “bigly” if this ban goes into effect. His view on this issue, however underdeveloped, shouldn’t surprise Americans. He would side with big business boycotting North Carolina because he too has employed similar bully tactics during his illustrious business career.

Again, I defer to Heritage Foundation’s Ryan T. Anderson who diagnosed this trend as “cultural cronyism”. He wrote, “Big businesses use their outsized market share to pressure government to do their bidding at the expense of the will of the people and the common good. And, hypocritically, the left cheers it on.”

Trump ignores problems arising with these bathrooms

Trump said in the interview he isn’t aware of any problems surrounding these controversial bathrooms–that there’s “so little trouble” with these bathrooms.

There are already numerous incidents pointing to the problem with these proposed transgender-friendly bathrooms.

Rape survivor Kaeley Triller wrote in the Federalist last year how these bathrooms invite guys who exploit the transgender label to get close to women. She wrote, “There are countless deviant men in this world who will pretend to be transgender as a means of gaining access to the people they want to exploit.”

A recent case in Seattle, Washington, already proves that transgender bathrooms invite creeps and similar invalids to harass women and children. In February, a man wearing board shorts entered a women’s locker room citing the new ordinance in place. Women complained about him undressing there to the police, so they immediately removed him.

These are countless problems set to arise from transgendered bathrooms, but the Don doesn’t seem to care or have problems with it presently. But don’t expect him to keep this position for he will likely change it not once, not twice, not three times–but more!

The conservative movement cannot afford to have this New York leftist at the helms of our cause. Coronating him for the GOP nomination will ensure a Hillary win in the general election. We can’t afford that.

Obama’s Military Opposes U.N. Zero Tolerance for Sex Crimes

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon recently called sexual abuse by its peacekeeping troops “a cancer in our system.” But American troops in Afghanistan have been drummed out for doing the very thing Ban Ki Moon wants U.N. forces to do.

Last month, the United Nations published a damning independent investigation that said poor enforcement of policies in place to deter and report abuse meant that “the credibility of the U.N. and peacekeeping operations are in jeopardy.” Experts and officials say systemic problems still hinder the investigation and prosecution of alleged abusers, leading to the perception of impunity within U.N. ranks.

The abuse “undermines everything we stand for,” said Anthony Banbury, the U.N. assistant secretary-general for field support.

(Source)

Will someone please tell the the difference between Afghan policemen sexually abusing little boys and U.N. peacekeepers in the Central African Republic paying fifty cents for sex with thirteen year old girls? Because, in my mind (but you know, I’m a Christian prude), sodomizing pre-pubescent boys is at least as bad–and indeed, much worse–than paying young adolescent girls for sex.

The U.N. mission was also strongly criticized for failing to react to offenses by other peacekeepers in the Central African Republic. As many as 14 troops from France, Chad and Equatorial Guinea allegedly raped and sodomized six boys between the ages of 9 and 15 in 2013 and 2014, before the U.N. mission formally began. The United Nations took no action after learning about the cases, until a whistleblower leaked an internal U.N. investigation to French authorities, according to U.N. officials. Last month, the report by a panel including former Canadian supreme court justice Marie Deschamps found that U.N. staff in Bangui had “turned a blind eye to the criminal actions of individual troops” in that case.

So the U.N. admits there’s a problem, while the U.S. Army says “it’s their culture.” Green Beret Charles Martland stood up to Afghan boy-abusers and got discharged for his trouble. This is the anti-whistleblower atmosphere American troops deal with.

“The U.N. should stop tiptoeing around, trying not to offend governments and instead put the victims of sexual exploitation and abuse at the heart of their policy,” said Sarah Taylor, advocate in the women’s rights division at Human Rights Watch.

Some advocates argue that the lack of enforcement encourages a sense among U.N. employees that they can commit sexual crimes with impunity while based overseas.

Given the example set by the supposed “leaders of the free world” (who, under Obama’s non-leadership, have abdicated the role), why shouldn’t sexual predators think they get a free pass? They know nothing will happen to them.

Sabrina Erdley, Rolling Stone, and the Media Put the Cause Before the Truth

The media completely buys the idea of misogynist culture. The media completely buys the idea that fraternities are filled with silver spooned rapists. The media complete believes there is a “rape culture” in America and by God the media will prove it.

Thus Sabrina Erdley sought out the perfect victim and found that perfect victim at the University of Virginia. According to Erdley, writing in Rolling Stone, “Jackie” was gang raped at a fraternity party.

When anyone dared suggest Erdley’s story seemed too good to be true, Erdley attacked that person as a defender of rapists. Crazy Amanda Marcotte, just the other day, accused people who deny rape culture of denying the holocaust.

But now, well, Erdley’s publication is blaming the rape victim. Turns out Erdley failed at basic journalism such as talking to the alleged rapists. Now it turns out there was not even a fraternity party the night Erdley’s “Jackie” alleges.

What has happened will temporarily set back Sabrina Erdley’s and Rolling Stone’s reputations, but only temporarily. They will not be driving from credibility the way a conservative would because they recognize the cause is more important that truth and facts.

These stories are going to keep happening. They will have fall out. Other victims of rape may now be more hesitant to come forward. It may now be harder to get people to believe real stories.

But the cause remains greater than the truth for these “journalists”. Journalists used to believe truth was power, but now stories are. As the left becomes more and more levitical in their world view, showing no mercy and no grace, they have to develop a canon of scripture and stories to tell their tales and lay out the parameters of their faith.

That mythology comes with their own version of Aesop’s fables — stories to relate their morals. It does not matter that the rape at the University of Virginia was not real. Because “rape culture” is real and fraternity boys are silver spooned satans, the story has power. The left must continue building the canon of their religion, of which Rolling Stone’s bunk articles play a necessary role. It’ll get shuttled off now to the non-canonical works. But Lena Dunham can fill the void.

Sabrina Erdley, Rolling Stone, and the Media Put the Cause Before the Truth

The media completely buys the idea of misogynist culture. The media completely buys the idea that fraternities are filled with silver spooned rapists. The media complete believes there is a “rape culture” in America and by God the media will prove it.

Thus Sabrina Erdley sought out the perfect victim and found that perfect victim at the University of Virginia. According to Erdley, writing in Rolling Stone, “Jackie” was gang raped at a fraternity party.

When anyone dared suggest Erdley’s story seemed too good to be true, Erdley attacked that person as a defender of rapists. Crazy Amanda Marcotte, just the other day, accused people who deny rape culture of denying the holocaust.

But now, well, Erdley’s publication is blaming the rape victim. Turns out Erdley failed at basic journalism such as talking to the alleged rapists. Now it turns out there was not even a fraternity party the night Erdley’s “Jackie” alleges.

What has happened will temporarily set back Sabrina Erdley’s and Rolling Stone’s reputations, but only temporarily. They will not be driving from credibility the way a conservative would because they recognize the cause is more important that truth and facts.

These stories are going to keep happening. They will have fall out. Other victims of rape may now be more hesitant to come forward. It may now be harder to get people to believe real stories.

But the cause remains greater than the truth for these “journalists”. Journalists used to believe truth was power, but now stories are. As the left becomes more and more levitical in their world view, showing no mercy and no grace, they have to develop a canon of scripture and stories to tell their tales and lay out the parameters of their faith.

That mythology comes with their own version of Aesop’s fables — stories to relate their morals. It does not matter that the rape at the University of Virginia was not real. Because “rape culture” is real and fraternity boys are silver spooned satans, the story has power. The left must continue building the canon of their religion, of which Rolling Stone’s bunk articles play a necessary role. It’ll get shuttled off now to the non-canonical works. But Lena Dunham can fill the void.

The post Sabrina Erdley, Rolling Stone, and the Media Put the Cause Before the Truth appeared first on RedState.

CONFIRMED: Georgia Right to Life Opposes Legislation to Prohibit Abortions

With friends like these… Life News confirms Georgia Right to Life is opposed to one of the most pro-life pieces of legislation to come out of Congress since the partial birth abortion ban. While the rest of the pro-life movement lobbies today for the ban on abortions from 20 weeks to the point of birth, one pro-life organization is apparently calling members of Congress to | Read More »