Democrat and Hollywood Hypocrisy – Harvey Weinstein

Larry Elder takes us on a Democrat infested mine-field courtesy of Harvey Weinstein. For more on the mentioned “Nuts or Sluts defense,” see Larry’s detailed explanation HERE. And more anti-woman positions by Hillary, see HERE.

Gay Patriot grabs this excerpt to point to how good of a progressive Weinstein was….

In 2015, [Weinstein’s] company distributed “The Hunting Ground,” a documentary about campus sexual assault. A longtime Democratic donor, he hosted a fund-raiser for Hillary Clinton in his Manhattan home last year. He employed Malia Obama, the oldest daughter of former President Barack Obama, as an intern this year, and recently helped endow a faculty chair at Rutgers University in Gloria Steinem’s name. During the Sundance Film Festival in January, when Park City, Utah, held its version of nationwide women’s marches, Mr. Weinstein joined the parade.

ALSO…

John F. Kennedy Would Not Recognize Today`s Democratic Party

UPDATED (Originally posted in Nov 2013)

Rethinking History

“I’d be very happy to tell them I’m not a liberal at all.” ~ John F. Kennedy, 1953

What Dennis Prager was asking James Swanson (below) was “what about the newer understanding that JFK was conservative?” (Prager has always echoed Reagan’s statement: “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party. The party left me.” This fresh look at history supports this long held belief  by many ex-Dems.) When historians go through Kennedy’s speeches and candid confessions, as well as policy, they are more-and-more coming to the following conclusion:

A short excerpt from an article by Ira Stoll, in the October 2013 edition of The American Spectator, can be read in full here for the non-subscriber: JFK Conservative

The People`s Blog

Those “men of Dallas” — men like my grandfather, oil men and corporate executives, self-made but self-segregated in a white-collar enclave in a decidedly blue-collar state — often loathed the federal government at least as much as, if not more than, they did the Soviet Union or Communist China.

This characterization is undoubtedly familiar to all of us and, not coincidentally, fits a certain group of hate-filled lunatics to a “T” (or should we say “TEA”.)

….WHAT I TAKE to be the truth about John Kennedy and his conservatism has, in the years since he died, been forgotten. This is partly because of the work of liberal historians and partly due to changes in America’s major political parties. Yet calling Kennedy a conservative was hardly controversial during his lifetime. “A Kennedy Runs for Congress: The Boston-bred scion of a former ambassador is a fighting-Irish conservative,” Look headlined an article in June 1946. “When young, wealthy and conservative John Fitzgerald Kennedy announced for Congress, many people wondered why,” the story began. “Hardly a liberal even by his own standards, Kennedy is mainly concerned by what appears to him as the coming struggle between collectivism and capitalism. In speech after speech he charges his audience ‘to battle for the old ideas with the same enthusiasm that people have for new ideas.’”

The Chicago Tribune reported Kennedy’s election to the U.S. Senate in 1952 by describing him as a “fighting conservative.” In a June 1953 Saturday Evening Post article, Kennedy said, “I’d be very happy to tell them I’m not a liberal at all,” adding, speaking of liberals, “I’m not comfortable with those people.” In 1958, Eleanor Roosevelt was asked in a television interview what she would do if she had to choose between a “conservative Democrat like Kennedy and a liberal Republican [like] Rockefeller.” She said she would do all she possibly could to make sure the Democrats did not nominate a candidate like Kennedy.

On the campaign trail before the 1960 election, Kennedy spoke about economics: “We should seek a balanced budget over the course of the business cycle with surpluses during good times more than offsetting the deficits which may be incurred during slumps. I submit that this is not a radical fiscal policy. It is a conservative policy.” This wasn’t just campaign rhetoric—Kennedy kept his distance from liberalism right up until his assassination. “Why are some ‘liberals’ cool to the Kennedy Administration?” Newsweek asked in April 1962. The article went on to explain: “the liberal credentials of young Senator Kennedy never were impeccable…He never was really one of the visceral liberals…many liberal thinkers never felt close to him.”

Even after Kennedy’s death, the “conservative” label was used to describe the late president and his policies by some of those who knew him best. One campaign staffer and congressional aide, William Sutton, described Kennedy’s political stance in the 1946 campaign as “almost ultraconservative.” “He was more conservative than anything else,” said a Navy friend of Kennedy’s, James Reed, who went on to serve Kennedy’s assistant Treasury secretary and who had talked for “many hours” with the young Kennedy about fiscal and economic matters. Another of Kennedy’s friends, the Washington columnist Joseph Alsop, echoed these sentiments in a 1964 interview:

The thing that’s very important to remember about the president was that he was not, in the most marked way, he was not a member of the modern, Democratic, liberal group. He had real—contempt I’m afraid is the right word—for the members of that group in the Senate, or most of them…What he disliked—and here again we’ve often talked about it—was the sort of posturing, attitude-striking, never getting anything done liberalism…This viewpoint was completely foreign to Kennedy, and he regarded it with genuine contempt. Genuine contempt. He really was—contemptuous is the right word for it. He was contemptuous of that attitude in American life.

Alsop went on to emphasize “the great success that the Kennedy administration had with an intelligent, active, but (in my opinion) conservative fiscal-economic policy.”

In January 1981, in the early days of the Reagan presidency, a group of Kennedy administration veterans gathered at the John F. Kennedy Library in Boston for a private conversation. One of the participants, Ted Sorensen, said, “Kennedy was a fiscal conservative. Most of us and the press and historians have, for one reason or another, treated Kennedy as being much more liberal than he so regarded himself at the time…In fiscal matters, he was extremely conservative, very cautious about the size of the budget.” Sorensen made a similar point in a November 1983 Newsweek article, saying, “He never identified himself as a liberal…On fiscal matters he was more conservative than any president we’ve had since.” In a 1993 speech, Kennedy’s Treasury secretary, Douglas Dillon, described the president as “financially conservative.” Combine that position with hawkish anticommunism, and it is hard to find much overlap with liberals

…article will continue…

A little pop quiz. What do you call a politician who is pro-life? What do you call a politician who is for lower taxes? What do you call a politician who is for a strong national defense? What do you call a president who is a proud nationalist, proud to be an American? What do you call that person?

That is John Fitzgerald Kennedy. That is who JFK was. And that is the second attempted Drive-By Media Democrat Party distraction today. Although there’s a little bit more justification for spending time on the 50th anniversary of that assassination than there is on this nuclear option business. Let me tell you how ridiculous this is getting. You and I all know, Warren report, whatever, we all know that Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy. (interruption) I know. I can hear right now people throwing things at the radio, shouting things at the radio. We know that Lee Harvey Oswald fired on the president, okay? We know this, and we know what about Lee Harvey Oswald?

Lee Harvey Oswald was a communist. We know that a leftist, a communist assassinated JFK. That is the official Warren report conclusion. And yet the media cannot let go of the fact that because there were a lot of white Republican businessmen in Dallas, that it was a climate of hate, a climate of fear, a climate of extremism in Dallas that led to Kennedy’s death. Every conspiracy theory that you have heard that makes you think Lee Harvey Oswald was not the assassin was started by the Democrats. Every one.

(Via Conservative Byte… excerpted from Rush [link in cartoon])

The American Spectator continues:

[….]

THE QUESTION OF Kennedy’s ultimate political convictions is more than a matter of mere historical curiosity. Kennedy consistently ranks near the top of public polls asking about the greatness of past presidents. His popularity suggests that the American people think his record is a model worth emulating. Simply to ape Kennedy would be impossible, of course. The Soviet Union is gone, tax rates now are lower than when Kennedy wanted to cut them, and the state universities of the South have been racially integrated. But if the contours of the foreign policy, tax, and education fights have shifted, Kennedy’s course in them may nonetheless inform our choices today, as it has since his death. And other issues of Kennedy’s time are still with us, including economic growth, government spending, inflation, and, as he put it, “Christian morality,” the “cynical philosophy of many of our intellectuals,” and “the right of the individual against the state.”

Calling Kennedy a political conservative may make liberals uncomfortable—perish the thought!—by crowning conservatism with the halo of Camelot. And it could make conservatives uncomfortable too. Many have long despised the entire Kennedy family, especially John’s younger brother Ted. But conservatives need not always trust received wisdom, especially when it comes to conservatism. Better, then, to forge ahead, to try to understand both the 29-year-old Navy veteran speaking at Faneuil Hall and the president he became.

Larry Elder Ruminates On Trump, Comey, and Watergate

Here is the WASHINGTON POST article by Bill Clinton’s former Attorney General:

….It is true, as I pointed out in a Post op-ed in October, that Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, after her tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton, had left a vacuum by neither formally recusing herself nor exercising supervision over the case. But the remedy for that was for Comey to present his factual findings to the deputy attorney general, not to exercise the prosecutorial power himself on a matter of such grave importance.

Until Comey’s testimony last week, I had assumed that Lynch had authorized Comey to act unilaterally. It is now clear that the department’s leadership was sandbagged. I know of no former senior Justice Department official — Democrat or Republican — who does not view Comey’s conduct in July to have been a grave usurpation of authority.

Comey’s basic misjudgment boxed him in, compelling him to take increasingly controversial actions giving the impression that the FBI was enmeshed in politics. Once Comey staked out a position in July, he had no choice on the near-eve of the election but to reopen the investigation when new evidence materialized. Regrettably, however, this performance made Comey himself the issue, placing him on center stage in public political discourse and causing him to lose credibility on both sides of the aisle. It was widely recognized that Comey’s job was in jeopardy regardless of who won the election.

It is not surprising that Trump would be inclined to make a fresh start at the bureau and would consult with the leadership of the Justice Department about whether Comey should remain. Those deliberations could not begin in earnest until the new deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, to whom Comey would report, was confirmed and in a position to assess Comey and his performance. No matter how far along the president was in his own thinking, Rosenstein’s assessment is cogent and vindicates the president’s decision.

Rosenstein made clear in his memorandum that he was concerned not so much with Comey’s past arrogation of power, as astonishing as it was, but rather with his ongoing refusal to acknowledge his errors. I do not dispute that Comey sincerely believes he acted properly in the best interests of the country. But at the same time, I think it is quite understandable that the administration would not want an FBI director who did not recognize established limits on his powers.

It is telling that none of the president’s critics are challenging the decision on the merits. None argue that Comey’s performance warranted keeping him on as director. Instead, they are attacking the president’s motives, claiming the president acted to neuter the investigation into Russia’s role in the election.

The notion that the integrity of this investigation depends on Comey’s presence just does not hold water. Contrary to the critics’ talking points, Comey was not “in charge” of the investigation….

(Read It All)

Crazy Rafael Cruz/CIA Conspiracies Emerge #TrumpConspiracyTheories

#TrumpConspiracyTheories

I have ALREADY been sent two links to InfoWars about this conspiracy involving Rafael Cruz.

I wish to note here that I was told by the same person that sent me these links that I should use discernment in choosing Trump over Cruz… because Cruz is not a nice guy. And true Christians should always be nice apparently… even in their “office” as Senators (here is a bit of that convo here). Anyhew, I merely responded to these latest linked articles that people like he support Trump… and that is all the “discernment I need.”

Snopes squashed that original report from the whacked site InfoWars when they pointed out that,

…the WMR’s [the second linked article in my bullet points] author doesn’t explain how he could possibly know that the unidentified person standing near Lee Harvey Oswald in these photographs was actually a Cuban (other than by assuming he’s Rafael Cruz), nor does he identify the “source” who informed him that the “individual to Oswald’s left is none other than Rafael Cruz.” (By the standards of “evidence” used in typical WMR items, someone’s saying, “Hey, the dude in that blurry Oswald photo looks kinda like Ted Cruz’s dad” counts as a “source.”)…

NOT TO MENTION that Rafael Cruz did not live in New Orleans until 1965 — two-years after the photo of him and Oswald in “Nwawlins.” PolitiFact adds to this whirlwind of “evidence”

…Two photo experts the tabloid hired — Mitch Goldstone of ScanMyPhotos, a digitizing photo service, and Carole Lieberman, a forensic expert witness — said another man in the image appears to be young Rafael Cruz, according to McClatchy.

We could not independently verify these experts’ validation, as neither Goldstone nor Lieberman got back to us.

When we reached out to Kairos, a Miami-based facial recognition software company, Chief Technology Officer Cole Calistra was skeptical about claims of a positive identification. Calistra told PolitiFact that the photos are too grainy “to perform a proper match one way or the other.”

James Wayman, the former director of U.S. National Biometric Test Center in the Clinton administration, said proper analysis requires two full-frontal facial images.

“Without such images, no professional face examiner will be willing to render an opinion,” he said.

That being said, we had freelance programmer Lucien Gendrot test it out using Kairos’ face recognition API. The software could not verify a match between photos of the unidentified man next to Oswald and young Rafael Cruz, even at a low threshold of a 25 percent match.

In short, as Snopes wrote in an April 2016 analysis of a similar claim, the low-resolution photos are essentially “of dark-haired young men with similar haircuts.” That’s speculation, not evidence.

One commentator at Free Republic humorously finishes his serious point:

  • “This is really the idiot the GOP is going to go with against Hillary? At least he’ll release the files about the moon landing hoax.”

What are some of the facts known? (I cannot believe I have to do this!):

  • In known pictures of Rafael from the time, the era are vastly different between the two men (MetaBunk);
  • Rafael is almost an entire head taller than the man in the picture (Secrets of a Homicide);
  • The two “experts” that identified Rafael for the Inquirer are not returning calls to the press (PolitiFact);
  • Rafael Cruz said he was not in New Orleans until 1965, the photo touted as Rafael were take in 1963 (Heavy).

I am after another piece of evidence that will surely come sooner-or-later… and it is the connection to the CIA:

For one thing, Rafael’s draft card from July 26, 1967 lists his employer as “Geophysics & Computer Service Inc.,” a French-based firm connected to both Schlumberger and Zapata Offshore Company, the former having a since-declassified relationship with the CIA and the latter once run by George H.W. Bush. (InfoWars)

My experience is that if you wait a bit… those more industrious than I uncover embarrassing facts for the conspiracy believers. More to come, surely.

Trump is Bat-Shit-Crazy!

#TrumpConspiracyTheories

Politico notes:

Donald Trump on Tuesday alleged that Ted Cruz’s father was with John F. Kennedy’s assassin shortly before he murdered the president, parroting a National Enquirer story claiming that Rafael Cruz was pictured with Lee Harvey Oswald handing out pro-Fidel Castro pamphlets in New Orleans in 1963.

A Cruz campaign spokesperson told the Miami Herald, which pointed out numerous flaws in the Enquirer story, that it was “another garbage story in a tabloid full of garbage.”

[….]

Asked to respond, Trump called it a disgrace. “I think it’s a disgrace that he’s allowed to do it. I think it’s a disgrace that he’s allowed to say it…”

Is Trump saying government should be so invasive that it could stop silly speech like Cruz’s father? Moonbattery continues on in commentary on this topic:

Egged on by his Fox News pompom squad, Trump also denounced Cruz, who is a preacher, for courting evangelicals on behalf of his son. Trump has promised to silence critics when he takes power; now he sputters that it is “a disgrace” that Rafael Cruz is “allowed” to encourage voters to support his son.

Despite the appalling sellout by Jerry Falwell, the lines are clearly drawn where Christianity is concerned. Those who take it seriously must be very poorly informed to support a degenerate like Trump.

national-enquirer-cruz-jfk

And Gay Patriot joins in the chorus:

…Yeah, just when you think he can’t possibly sink any lower than talking about Megyn Kelly’s menstrual cycle or saying George W. Bush was responsible for 9-11.

And his slobbering followers are lapping it up.

Because they are as mindless and impervious to reason and good sense as Obama’s followers.

I think I’ve officially gone from #NeverTrump to #NeverEverNoFkingWayNotEvenIfYouHeldAGunToMyHeadTrump.

At this point, Hillary could pick Chuck Schumer as her running mate, Gloria Allred as her Supreme Court pick, and Huma Abedin as First Lady and I would still be #NoFkingWayTrump

Larry Elder vs Hollywood Elitists

Video Description:

Once again “The Sage,” Larry Elder deepens his thoughts on an issue he merely scratched the surface of a couple of days ago (https://youtu.be/8S7ZExx24MM). In this newer edition from yesterday’s show (1-21-16) Larry talks about the recent viral attacks by the left against Stacey Dash saying there shouldn’t be a Black History Month. Prior to that he sets the stage with comparisons to how the media and the left attack Republicans but typically let Democratic political figures escape their wrath. Following Stash’s comment are those of Morgan Freeman’s similar comments.

Other topics dealt with are self-esteem, and the blatant double standards as well as putting all this in the “rich black elite crybaby” category. Great stuff, Larry at his best!

Once again “The Sage,” Larry Elder deepens his thoughts on an issue he merely scratched the surface of a couple of days ago (https://youtu.be/8S7ZExx24MM). In this newer edition from yesterday’s show (1-21-16) Larry talks about the recent viral attacks by the left against Stacey Dash saying there shouldn’t be a Black History Month. Prior to that he sets the stage with comparisons to how the media and the left attack Republicans but typically let Democratic political figures escape their wrath. Following Stash’s comment are those of Morgan Freeman’s similar comments.

Other topics dealt with are self-esteem, and the blatant double standards as well as putting all this in the “rich black elite crybaby” category. Great stuff, Larry at his best!


Listen To Larry On-Line at CRN-Talk Radio [LIVE: 12-2pm]:

http://crntalk.com/shows/1144-the-larry-elder-show

Re-broadcast on 870AM (The Answer) from 9-11pm:

http://www.am870theanswer.com/weekdayprogramguide.aspx

For more clear thinking like this from Larry Elder… I invite you to visit: http://www.larryelder.com/ ~AND~ http://www.elderstatement.com/

JFK’s “Secret Societies” Speech

See more here in a forum discussion.

Video Description:

(Cue Evil Laughter) The original video can be found hereBut the video file at LiveLeak is bad.

Here is his description from LiveLeak:

There is a popular video that pops up every now and then that has John F. Kennedy making allusions to a secret society and other kinds of woo woo.

That speech has nothing to do with the NWO people. He means communism and he was addressing the American Newspaper Publishers Association and their responsibility to consider national security when publishing articles about government activity during the cold war.

Here is a link to the full transcript, where you can also listen to the fill 19 minute recording.

Larry Elder Takes Steven Colbert to the Wood Shed…

…and by association, the media, as well as the rest of the Democrat sheep:

Larry Elder was filling in for Dennis Prager and during the course of this portion of the show takes Colbert (and other media’ites/Democrats) to the tool shed. In classic “Sage” style, Larry goes through his comparisons like a samurai sword through butter.

Just How Much Have Democrats Changed in 20-Years? (Mark Steyn)

Mark Steyn (http://www.steynonline.com/) responds to the question of how far the Democrat Party has moved in 20[+] years in regards to its extremism. Senator Ted Cruz notes how far, for example, the Democrats have moved leftward from Ted Kennedy on the First Amendment (below).

For more clear thinking like this from Hugh Hewitt… I invite you to visit: http://www.hughniverse.com/

If you asked a student to listen to Kennedy’s inaugural speech — without letting them know who was giving it, do you think they would say it was a Republican or Democrat? 

Hugh Hewitt and Journalist Uwe Siemon-Netto Discuss Lee Harvey Oswald and the Media`s Proclivity To Blame Conservatives

(See two other posts on this here, and here) Video Description

Hugh Hewitt interviews Uwe Siemon-Netto about the Medias proclivity to blame Republicans for violence… since the JFK days.

From Hugh Hewitt’s blog (http://www.hughhewitt.com/jfk-coveredca-com/):

Today’s studio guest will be Uwe Siemon-Netto, a remarkable man with a long and accomplished life in journalism and theology. Part of the former life was as a correspondent for Springer Foreign News Service which took him around the world, from the UN to Vietnam, and to Dallas in the immediate aftermath of the murder of President Kennedy 50 years ago today. His most recent book, published this past July, concerns his years as a war correspondent in “Vietnam: Duc: A Reporter’s Love For The Wounded People of Vietnam.”

More about the Uwe:

For 57 years, Uwe Siemon-Netto, an international journalist from Germany, has reported about major world events including the construction and the fall of the Berlin Wall and the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. He covered the Vietnam War over a period of five years, from 1965 until 1969 and then again in 1972. He has also written extensively about topics ranging from wine, food, classical music and modern art to religion. At age 50 he interrupted his career to earn an M.A. at a Lutheran seminary in Chicago and a doctorate in theology and sociology of religion at Boston University. His doctoral dissertation titled, The Fabricated Luther: Refuting Nazi Connections and Other Modern Myths, has been widely acclaimed as a resounding argument against the charge that the 16th-century German reformer could have been Hitler’s progenitor. As part of his theological studies Siemon-Netto served as a chaplain to Vietnam veterans in Minnesota and wrote a significant book on pastoral care titled, The Acquittal of God: A Theology for Vietnam Veterans. Dr. Siemon-Netto now lives in southern California as a writer, educator and founding director emeritus of the Center for Lutheran Theology and Public Life in Capistrano Beach. Part of the year he and his British-born wife, Gillian, spend their time at their home in the Charente region of southwestern France.

For more clear thinking like this from Hugh Hewitt… I invite you to visit: http://www.hughniverse.com/