Category: Democrats

Hollywood Pedophilia Scandal: Did Democrats Know About Gay Donors?

Posted on Comments

After Thursday’s report about director Bryan Singer, I got an e-mail tip from a reader that led to this American Spectator article:

Allegations that a film director raped a teenage boy could impact fundraising for Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, whose close ties to Hollywood’s gay community are potentially implicated in the scandal.
Bryan Singer, the openly gay director best known for the X-Men series of action films, has been accused in a lawsuit filed by a 31-year-old man who says he was 17 when Singer forcibly sodomized him in 1999. The plaintiff in that lawsuit, former model and actor Michael F. Egan III, describes attending Hollywood parties that “were typically sordid and featured sexual contact between adult males and the many teenage boys who were present for the parties.” According to the lawsuit, Singer attended the gay sex parties at the estate of Marc Collins-Rector, an entertainment entrepreneur who subsequently pleaded guilty to multiple crimes involving underage boys, and is now a registered sex offender.
“Since 2006 Bryan Singer has contributed at least $87,620 to Democratic candidates and committees,” the Daily Caller reported. “In 2006 and 2007 Singer contributed a combined total of $6,500 to Hillary Clinton’s campaigns, according to the Center for Responsive Politics’ Open Secrets. In 2011 and 2012 Singer contributed a combined $61,600 to the Democratic National Committee.”
Singer has also hosted notoriously raucous gay parties at the home of film director Roland Emmerich, the London Daily Mail reported. In a 2011 interview with the Advocate, a leading gay publication, Emmerich described how Singer invited hundreds of “twinks” — slang for very young gay men — to the annual pool parties at Emmerich’s Hollywood estate. The paper highlighted a photo showing scores of men frolicking in Emmerich’s swimming pool.
It was at Emmerich’s estate in June 2007 that Hillary Clinton attended an “LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender) fundraiser event” for her Democrat presidential campaign. A description of the event: “The Senator first greeted the VIP guests in the upper section of the estate and then moved on to the pool area to address the approximately 250 supporters who have gathered to meet the former First Lady. Hillary Clinton’s main topic that night was the discrimination of gays and lesbians and their (mostly lost) rights, which she is fighting to restore.” That account described Emmerich’s estate: “The lush gardens and the unique building made a perfect backdrop for the presidential candidate and the many guests seemed to enjoy the privilege of setting foot on this private property.”
No one has accused Emmerich of involvement in the sexual misconduct alleged against Singer in Egan’s lawsuit, and an attorney for Singer dismissed Egan’s allegations as “without merit … absurd and defamatory.” However, Egan and his attorney Jeff Herman have suggested there was a larger network of gay pedophiles surrounding Collins-Rector, who Egan said repeatedly threatened him: “We control Hollywood and we will eliminate you.”

 The evidence here is all over the Internet in plain sight. It doesn’t take fancy “investigative journalism” to assemble the pieces:

Now, am I saying that every gay person in Hollywood is a pedophile, or that Democrats endorse the kind of activities alleged in Michael Egan’s lawsuit? Nothing of the kind.

What I am saying is that the Democrat Party has been collecting money to advance an agenda, and that some of the people providing that money are alleged to have an agenda of butt-raping teenage boys.

Even tonight, BuzzFeed’s Hunter Schwartz has reported an interesting fact: When three young men sued Collins-Rector in 2000, one of the plaintiffs was Alexander Burton, an actor who has appeared in exactly one movie: X-Men, directed by Bryan Singer.

Maybe that’s just a coincidence. And maybe not.

 

Kook Nation: Crazy Lady Who Threw Shoe at Hillary Clinton Is Crazy

Posted on Comments

The wackos are everywhere nowadays:

Before a wig-wearing nutjob threw a shoe at Hillary Clinton, the footwear flinger gave her heart to accused Colorado mass killer James Holmes.
Alison Ernst, 36, of Phoenix, was identified Friday as the sneaker-tossing kook who targeted the former First Lady one day earlier during a speech at a Las Vegas casino.
And Colorado officials confirmed she was the loopy lady escorted from the courtroom after a bizarre — and bald-headed — outburst during an August 2012 court hearing for Holmes. . . .
Twenty months earlier, she arrived in a Colorado courtroom with her head shaved while wearing a red dress before declaring she held evidence “vital to the defense of James Holmes.” Two deputies quickly escorted her outside.
The Arizona woman later filed an off-the-wall lawsuit detailing her devotion to Holmes, who was accused of killing 12 people and wounding another 70 in an Aurora movie theater. . . .
“I seek a restraining order to stop Holmes from entering my mind through subliminal messaging and causing me to be obsessed with him on a daily basis.”

Almost as “off-the-wall” as Brett Kimberlin’s Second Amended Complaint.

 

Scapegoated for ObamaCare Failures, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius Resigns

Posted on Comments

Thursday’s resignation of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is the biggest move yet in President Obama’s effort to rescue his signature government health-insurance plan, and to limit the political impact of the program’s failure.

The administration and its allies are trying to convince Americans that problems with the Affordable Care Act (ACA) are just temporary technical glitches with a website — the “botched rollout” narrative — rather than fundamental flaws with the law itself.

Sebelius’s resignation fits that narrative, permitting Democrats and their media sympathizers to claim that problems with ObamaCare were caused by the former HHS secretary’s incompetence, and not by any basic problem in the president’s program. This is likely to become a key issue in the campaign for the fall mid-term elections, in which Republicans seeking to capture the Senate majority will argue that ObamaCare is a complete failure that should be repealed, while Democrats will say the policy is successful, but simply had a few early glitches that have now been fixed. Liberal blogger Ezra Klein offers the Democrat spin:

Obamacare has won. And that’s why Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius can resign.
Calls for Sebelius’s resignation were almost constant after Obamacare’s catastrophic launch. The problem wasn’t just that Sebelius had presided over the construction of a fantastically expensive web site that flatly didn’t work. It was that she didn’t know healthcare.gov was going to instantly, systemically fail. And so the White House didn’t know that healthcare.gov was going to instantly, systemically fail. The demands that Sebelius to step down — or be fired — were as deafening inside the building as outside of it.
But President Obama refused. As National Journal’s Major Garrett reported, Obama believes that “scaring people with a ceremonial firing deepens fear, turns allies against one another, makes them risk-averse, and saps productivity.” Moreover, there was too much to be done to fire one of the few people who knew how to finish the job. Sebelius would stay. The White House wouldn’t panic in ways that made it harder to save the law.
The evidence has piled up in recent weeks that the strategy worked. Obamacare’s first year, despite a truly horrific start, was a success. More than 7 million people look to have signed up for health insurance through the exchanges. Millions more have signed up through Medicaid. And millions beyond that have signed up for insurance through their employers.

In Klein’s pro-Obama narrative, then, not only is ObamaCare a successful policy, but the president’s handling of problems with the website’s launch demonstrated his competence as an executive.

Ben Domenech offers the conservative interpretation:

Kathleen Sebelius is resigning, and Rachel Maddow is right to not be happy about it, not one little bit. For once, I completely agree with Maddow’s analysis. This surprise resignation presents Republicans with an unexpected opportunity to refocus the conversation on Obamacare’s negatives, offers a chance to force vulnerable Senate Democrats to take a hard vote on Obamacare six months before the midterms, and serves to disrupt what had been a positive few days of media spin for the health care law into another conversation about its many failings.

Domenech sees the upcoming confirmation vote for Sebelius’s appointed successor at HHS — Office of Management and Budget Director Sylvia Matthews Burwell — as a “golden opportunity” for Senate Republicans “to reignite their crusade against Obamacare,” forcing Democrats to give an up-or-down vote on a nominee who will serve as a “proxy” symbol for the program’s failures.

Domenech should caution his GOP friends on Capitol Hill to tread carefully, as Democrats and their media allies may be luring Republicans into a “War on Women” trap, setting up a situation in which a bunch of old white guys are seen attacking a female nominee.

This trap could best be avoided simply by calling attention to how the administration is deliberately setting up Burwell.

Having made one woman (Sebelius) a scapegoat for ObamaCare’s failures to date, now the White House disingenuously shoves another top female administration official into the political meat-grinder, hoping to obtain a short-term political benefit from Burwell’s public humiliation in Senate hearings. Considering how Hillary Clinton was scapegoated for the Benghazi massacre, Republicans might well ask, “Why does Obama always blame women for his failures?”

 

77 Cents on the Dollar?

Posted on Comments

President Obama’s repetition of feminist “pay gap” lies — the false claim that women earn only 77 cents for every dollar men earn in the same jobs — has come back to haunt him, Jennifer Rubin says:

I’m betting the White House staffer who thought up the equal pay initiative is getting some fairly icy looks and snippy calls from Democrats.

Rubin cites a series of consequences, including this:

The White House discovered this week that calculations using average wages can yield unsatisfactory results. McClatchy newspapers did the math and reported that when the same standards that generated the 77-cent figure were applied to White House salaries, women overall at the White House make 91 cents for every dollar men make. White House spokesman Jay Carney protested that the review “looked at the aggregate of everyone on staff, and that includes from the most junior levels to the most senior.” But that’s exactly what the Census Department does.

The magic feminist “77 cents” number is derived from a crude comparison that, in essence, aggregates millions of apples-to-oranges comparisons. To compare the average income of all women to the average income of all men necessarily yields these false comparisons, because such crude averages do not take into consideration a host of factors that account for differences in income. Once you control for such factors — occupational specialty, years of education, etc. — the mythical “wage gap” evaporates. Caroline May at the Daily Caller reports:

The pay gap among women in the White House is more than twice as large as the average in the nation’s capital.
While female White House staffers earn about 88 cents for every dollar men in the White House make, women in the District earn about 95 cents for every dollar a men make, according to the most recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
That’s a 12-cent pay gap at the White House compared to a five-cent pay gap in the District of Columbia.

It’s always fun to play “gotcha” with liberals, using their own professed criteria to indict them for hypocrisy, but it’s important to remember that this is not ultimately the point of the exercise. When we call attention to the falseness of Democrat rhetoric by citing their inability to live up to the standards they would impose on others, our larger purpose should be to expose the erroneous beliefs that are embedded in liberal “standards.”

The radical  egalitarian worldview, which sees “discrimination” and “social injustice” wherever inequality exists, and which proposes government regulation as the solution to such alleged problems, invariably produces “solutions” that make life worse for everyone — except, perhaps, for the bureaucrats who get paid to enforce the regulations. A free economy may not result in what everyone would call fairness, but it does reliably produce prosperity. The radical egalitarian goal of “social justice” is a mirage, as Friedrich Hayek explained, and the pursuit of mirages is a waste of human resources.

 

House Democrats and the IRS Cover-Up

Posted on Comments

Headline by Katie Pavlich at Townhall:

BREAKING: Emails Show Lois Lerner
Fed True the Vote Tax Information
to Democrat Elijah Cummings

Details from Eliana Johnson at National Review:

The war between Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa and the committee’s ranking member, Elijah Cummings, rages on.
Issa on Wednesday accused the Maryland Democrat of colluding with the Internal Revenue Service in its targeting of the conservative nonprofit group True the Vote . . .
In a letter signed by his five subcommittee chairmen, Issa raised the possibility that Cummings coordinated with the IRS, “surreptitiously” contacting the agency to request information about True the Vote.
E-mails unearthed in the course of Issa’s investigation into the IRS’s inappropriate targeting of right-leaning groups show that in January 2013, a member of Cummings’s staff contacted the IRS asking for any publicly available information on True the Vote. The matter was discussed by IRS officials that included Lois Lerner, the former exempt-organizations chief who retired in the wake of the targeting scandal. One of Lerner’s deputies, Holly Paz, subsequently sent the organization’s 990 forms to Cummings and his staff — not an illegal disclosure of taxpayer information, though sources say the exchange of such information was not routine.

More documents are available at the Oversight Committee web page. Remember what I said yesterday:

My interpretation is that Democrats who have repeated claims that there was no political bias in the IRS are essentially part of a cover-up effort. And make no mistake: There was (and still is) a cover-up.

Elijah Cummings is a corrupt liar. Which is to say, he is a Democrat.

 

“Blinded By Delight”

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

With apologies to Springsteen, and admiration for his lyrical density, here is some love for Eric Holder:

“Blinded By Delight”

Hippies Yippies Drippies and pinheads named Zippy with a Commie zampolit
In the dumps with these chumps as the environmentalist pumps his head all full of ‘it
With the border in disorder, due to Eric Holder, once again he’s Congress-bound
Where Louie Gohmert communicated butt-hurt as his integrity crashed to the ground
And for Trey Gowdy the sky was very cloudy due to prosecutorial discretion
Which for Eric was no fun, as his head gets so little sun, lodged in its position
And now young Scott with a bracelet for his 10-shot tried to excercise his rights
And some southpaw scofflaw shot him point-blank in the jaw–injustice that Holder delights

Eric was blinded by delight
He cut up like a schmuck, another goner on the right
Blinded by delight
He got down but he never got tight, he’ll get a pardon, alright

The bit about Scott is a hypothetical, built on the notion that these pissant laws only harming people who follow them, and strangely affecting the scofflaws not at all.

That is one long set of lyrics, though, and I wasn’t going to get much more than this done anytime soon.

Our country cannot be rid of this Holder cretin quickly enough. What a poster child for everything good people despise about political appointees.

Yes, ObamaCare Kills Jobs

Posted on Comments

File this under “Not Exactly News.” Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of basic economics understood that the complex and burdensome system of mandates in ObamaCare would impede job creation. But nothing is true until the “experts” say so, I guess:

The Republicans just got a big gift from the Congressional Budget Office: It’s going to be a lot easier for them to call Obamacare a “job killer.”
That’s because the budget office’s new economic report, released Tuesday, says the health care law will cause Americans to work fewer hours — enough to be the equivalent of 2 million fewer jobs in 2017.
The latest number is nearly three times as high as the budget office’s previous prediction, and it’s supposed to rise in later years to the equivalent of 2.5 million jobs in 2024. . . .
The projection will put the White House, and especially red-state Democrats, in an even more awkward position heading into November. Until now, they’ve mostly had to worry about stories of canceled health plans and, of course, the botched website rollout. Now they’ll need to figure out how to counter, or at least explain, the new CBO job figures.

There are two Americas. In one America, people understand economics. In the other America, people vote for Democrats.

It might help to read Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell. Just sayin’ . . .