Nancy Pelosi’s Alinsky Approach

gettyimages-979539974-1280x720

Nancy Pelosi recently delivered the following message to a group of like-minded people in New York City:

“I think that we owe the American people to be there for them, for their financial security, respecting the dignity and worth of every person in our country, and if there’s some collateral damage for some others who do not share our view, well, so be it…”

Whether she intended to provide such a window into her political soul is unknown. However, it was a profoundly significant revelation from the woman who is desperately seeking to be Speaker of the House once again.

What Pelosi did in her unwitting confession is to telegraph just how low the Democrats were willing to stoop in their craven quest for power, so low that people who merely disagree with their socialist agenda may, as her characterization indicated, become expendable.

“Collateral damage” is a term that refers to civilians who suffer serious injuries and even death as the result of military conflict. The phrase is frequently employed as a euphemism for civilian casualties of war.

Pelosi’s cavalier attitude about potential victims of her Party’s left-wing agenda reflects a worldview that is devoid of several key moral safeguards, without which a society simply collapses from within.

As disgraceful rhetoric and unprecedented conduct on the part of the Democrats mounted, the lack of a moral rubric was made manifest. For months Hillary Clinton, Maxine Waters, Eric Holder, and other prominent Party figures signaled their indifference to the welfare of persons and property as they simultaneously fanned the flames of discontent, which prompted base supporters and myriad susceptible individuals to engage in uncivil, intrusive, and outright violent behavior against political opponents.

Then came the hearings surrounding Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination and ultimate confirmation to the High Court, which turned out to be a seminal moment in time for what was to come to light, that the Democrats had devolved into societal autocrats who were determined to punish and, if “necessary,” destroy any individual or group that would fail to conform to their ideology or thwart their political plans.

What is on display is a collective capitulation to the Machiavellian maxim “the end justifies the means.” Machiavelli used this phrase to refer to the idea that a desired result ought to be reached by any means available, even morally bankrupt ones, in order to achieve what is viewed by those exercising power as a positive result.

Author Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” encapsulates the Machiavellian maxim and drags the concept to further depths. The book is fittingly dedicated to Lucifer.

While attending Wellesley, Hillary chose to write her undergraduate thesis on Alinsky and his tactics. Likewise, former President Barack Obama used “Rules for Radicals” as a textbook when he lectured on the subject of community organizing. The new so-called Democratic Socialists, that form a sizable portion of the base of the Party, are properly considered Alinskyites.

Alinsky devoted a chapter of his book to the topic at hand, titling it “Of Means and Ends.”

His rules relating to ethics reveal an intrinsically depraved philosophy.

Alinsky’s first rule is “One’s concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s personal interest in the issue.” In other words, the higher one ranks a particular issue, the less one should be concerned with whether or not the methods used to achieve it are good or evil.

“In war the end justifies almost any means” is Alinsky’s third rule, and it could easily be considered a match-up to Pelosi’s “collateral damage” phrase. Democrats have long defined their politics in military terms, where warlike strategy is employed, destruction of any and all types is deemed acceptable, and no societal construct or institution is off-limits.

Alinsky’s fourth rule, “ethical standards must be elastic to stretch in the times,” captures the essence of moral relativism. Basic logic dictates that moral standards that can be “stretched” at will cease to be actual standards.

In a twisted take-off on Fredric Neitzke’s “might makes right,” Alinsky’s seventh rule, “success or failure is a mighty determinate of ethics,” puts the outcome cart before the moral horse.

Throughout the chapter, Alinsky characterizes ethics as a hindrance to achieving political goals and is consequently expendable. As a result, any falsehood, any act of violence, any atrocity can be justified in the quest to achieve a political end.

The entire view is antithetical to the Judeo-Christian principles, which undergird Western civilization. The great theologian Thomas Aquinas wrote, “An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention,” which is, in essence, the direct opposite of what Alinsky preached.

In a land that reveres the endowments of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for each and every individual, “collateral damage” will never be acceptable…so be it.

Concerns Rise at ABC as ‘Roseanne’ Spin-off Debut Draws Near

the-conners-cast-air-date-roseanne-1533233025

Executives at ABC are reportedly feeling somewhat remorseful and perhaps a tad guilty about the removal a few months back of lead star Roseanne Barr from the hit series “Roseanne” over a controversial tweet that she had posted.

The apprehension currently taking place is due in part to the imminent first episode airing of what is essentially the “Roseanne” television show minus its lead star Barr.

Renamed “The Conners,” the sitcom keeps intact most of the same characters, settings, and storylines of the original, but the revised version has a major missing element, that being Barr herself, who in addition to being the show’s main character served as executive producer and co-writer.

Even prior to her career-changing tweet, media figures were criticizing the show because Barr’s character, like Barr herself, was an avid supporter of President Donald Trump.

It was only a few hours after news of her tweet went public that Barr was summarily dismissed. The termination occurred in May 2018, just three months following the show’s hugely successful premiere.

The UK Daily Mail recently quoted two senior ABC executives, who indicated to the newspaper that some doubts and trepidation exist regarding “The Conners” and acknowledged that terminating Barr was a rushed decision by Ben Sherwood, Disney Media Networks Co-Chairman and President of Disney-ABC Television, and Channing Dungey, President of the ABC Entertainment Group.

“We didn’t think it through properly,” one of the executives said. “What Roseanne did was wrong but we shouldn’t have rushed to fire her. It was almost a knee-jerk reaction by Ben and Channing who should have launched an investigation.”

According to the executive, an investigation “would have given them more time to listen to the public, advertisers, and cast members to determine the best decision.”

After the network announced the cancellation of Barr’s series, the mainstream media and liberals en masse praised ABC for acting quickly. However, many entertainment business professionals raised questions about why alternatives to complete termination were not offered, such as a temporary hiatus from the show.

“They could’ve suspended her from the first few episodes without pay and had her return later on in the season. I mean the season finale saw Roseanne going to the hospital for knee surgery,” an ABC executive said.

The exec noted that Barr’s fate could have been determined during the period in which her television character faced serious health complications and was struggling to survive. This would also have given Barr the opportunity to restore her career and personal reputation with select media appearances.

According to an ABC executive, on the day that her tweet made headlines Barr had “offered to publicly apologize and do the rounds of every show, but Ben and Channing weren’t having any of that and wanted her gone.”

“Roseanne kept saying on the call before she was fired, ‘What can I do? What can I do?’”

The source indicated that the writers could have written the Twitter controversy into the sitcom to allow the show and star to obtain public forgiveness.

“Fans of her show have watched her character confront prejudice and racism – we could’ve made this a storyline for her to save the show and redeem her publicly.”

Based on feedback from marketing and publicity professionals who are working on “The Conners,” ABC executives may have good reason to be apprehensive about the show’s fast-approaching debut.

The marketing and PR people for the show are apparently “horrified” since, as one of the ABC executives revealed, “No matter what promotional material is released…Roseanne’s fans come out in force stating that they won’t watch the show.”

According to the Daily Mail, top brass at ABC are also aware that posts on social media platforms align strongly against the idea of viewing a show without Barr.

“The comments on social media tend to skew in favor of Roseanne and slam ‘The Conners’ and the cast members who came back. Even dedicated fans of the Conner family feel conflicted about supporting a show that so swiftly eliminated the show’s matriarch and creator,” an ABC executive said.

Upon her exit, Barr agreed to have no creative or financial ties with the new series.

It is likely that ABC executives are experiencing regret over another hasty decision that was made by the television network, this being the one made to cancel Tim Allen’s hit comedy “Last Man Standing” after six successful seasons. Interestingly, Allen’s character, like Allen himself, is also a supporter of President Trump.

With a lateral shift to the FOX television network, “Last Man Standing” currently enjoys even better ratings than it had at ABC. In fact, the sitcom is FOX’s most-watched comedy in almost seven years.

Typically, a change in networks fails to give a television show an increase in its audience size. However, FOX’s premiere of “Last Man Standing” drew 8 million viewers, with an astounding 1.8 rating among adults 18-49.

“Standing”‘s season 7 premiere came in at much bigger numbers than the show’s season 6 premiere last fall on ABC, when it was only able to draw 5.9 million viewers and snag a 1.1 rating.

For three weeks straight now, the FOX comedy has dominated the difficult Friday prime time ratings and holds a commanding 1.4 rating for the coveted younger demographic.

Meanwhile ABC and its senior executives have had to endure abysmal ratings for the network’s entire Friday prime time lineup, which consists of soon-to-be-cancelled sitcoms “Fresh Off the Boat” (0.5 rating), “Speechless” (0.5 rating), and “Child Support” (0.4 rating).

Taylor Swift Gets Political

sub-buzz-15428-1513722794-2

For quite a while now the Internet has had a peculiar obsession with pop star Taylor Swift’s self-imposed political silence.

Liberal-minded Twitter and Facebook users have been posting comments pressuring Swift to join the ranks of myriad other celebrity activists who use their fame capital to move the political bar ever further to the left.

Up until now digital bully tactics have had little effect on the singer-songwriter. However, times have apparently changed in a big way, and Swift, who is currently on a “Reputation” concert tour, uploaded a photo to Instagram that virtually announces her candidate picks for political office in the state of Tennessee.

Swift previously nurtured an image of being above the political fray. In stark contrast, she has now chosen to take very specific positions on a number of polarizing issues in addition to her candidate endorsements.

Letting it be known that she will be voting as a Tennessee resident in the 2018 midterms, Swift announced her support for two Democrat candidates in her home state, one who is running for the U.S. Senate and another who is striving to secure a seat in House of Representatives.

Along with her endorsements, Swift let loose with an over-the-top slam of Republican Senate candidate Marsha Blackburn, who although of the female gender has the seemingly incorrect party affiliation attached to her name, at least according to leftist celebrity activists.

Swift informed her fans that Marsha Blackburn was running for the U.S. Senate in Tennessee and conveyed her emotion-laced opposition.

“As much as I have in the past and would like to continue voting for women in office, I cannot support Marsha Blackburn. Her voting record in Congress appalls and terrifies me,” Swift shared.

Accompanying her post was a black and white photo in which Swift wears a flannel shirt that makes her look like her old country music singing self.

A number of Swift’s A-list BFFs, including Blake Lively, Karlie Kloss, Katy Perry, and Chrissy Teigen, “liked” the post.

In her political Instagram post, Swift referenced her former approach to avoiding political expression.

“In the past I’ve been reluctant to publicly voice my political opinions, but due to several events in my life and in the world in the past two years, I feel very differently about that now,” Swift wrote.

Swift’s habit of abstaining from political discourse had become part of her public image. In a 2012 interview with TIME, she said that in spite of keeping herself “as educated and informed as possible,” she does not discuss political subjects.

“I don’t talk about politics because it might influence other people,” she told the publication at the time.

In November 2017, a blogger criticized Swift for her political silence and actually accused her of enabling an alt-right and white supremacist fan base.

Meghan Herning wrote a piece titled “Swiftly to the alt-right: Taylor subtly gets the lower case kkk in formation,” which was published in PopFront Magazine. Herning asserted that Swift’s single “Look What You Made Me Do” contains “dog whistles to white supremacy in the lyrics.”

Additionally, referring to the clothing worn in Swift’s related music video, Herning wrote that “Taylor lords over an army of models from a podium, akin to what Hitler had in Nazi Germany.” Herning added that “the similarities are uncanny and unsettling.”

Essentially condemning Swift for her silence, Herning wrote, “And while pop musicians are not respected world leaders, they have a huge audience and their music often reflects their values. So Taylor’s silence is not innocent, it is calculated.”

Herning received a letter from Swift’s attorneys, demanding she retract the article and threatening a lawsuit. The American Civil Liberties Union promptly came to the aid of Herning.

That same month, the left-leaning UK Guardian published an editorial titled “The Guardian view on Taylor Swift: an envoy for Trump’s values?”

The newspaper implied that, in part, because of her silence, Swift was a stealth Trump supporter.

“… a notable voice has been missing from the chorus: that of Taylor Swift, the world’s biggest pop star. Her silence is striking, highlighting the parallels between the singer and the president: their adept use of social media to foster a diehard support base … their laser focus on the bottom line; their support among the ‘alt-right,’” the editorial read.

The Guardian claimed that Swift’s songs “echo Mr. Trump’s obsession with petty score-settling in their repeated references to her celebrity feuds, or report in painstaking detail on her failed romantic relationships.”

In a Politico piece titled “The Weird Campaign to Get Taylor Swift to Denounce Donald Trump,” which summarized the pressure being mounted at the time on Swift to jump on the anti-Trump skateboard, Swift was labeled “studiously apolitical.”

Stats on the pop singer reveal that she has garnered 112 million Instagram followers, 84 million followers on Twitter, and 72 million “likes” on her Facebook page.

It is arguable that she is at the apex of the celebrity pyramid, as liberals who have pressured her to join their ranks are no doubt aware.

Her level of fame grants her greater endorsement power than many of the other celebrities who have been visible participants in left-of-center protests of late.

With all this in mind, there is now a question of whether Swift will be able to hold on to her popularity, and additionally whether she can maintain her sizable social media platform after the public becomes fully informed of her newfound politics.

Crowdfunding and the Hidden Digital Danger

Christine Blasey Ford listens to her attorney Michael Bromwich while testifying the Senate Judiciary Committee with in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill in Washington

In a September 2018 appearance on “CBS This Morning,” member of the Senate Judiciary Committee Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) opined that Dr. Christine Blasey Ford had “nothing to gain” in stepping forward with allegations against Supreme Court Justice nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

A few days later in an appearance on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” member of the Senate Judiciary Committee Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) stated in the form of a question to the host a similar opinion.

“What in the h*** did she have to gain by doing this?” Durbin queried.

History suggests that there are a host of significant gains that may indeed be awaiting Ford. One has already surfaced via a digital platform. It arrived in the form of “crowdfunding,” i.e., the practice of financing a venture or cause by raising money from a large number of people utilizing specialized websites on the Internet.

Two crowdfunding accounts on the GoFundMe website, which were made on behalf of Ford, have raised approximately $740,000. For reasons unknown, at present the two GoFundMe accounts are no longer accepting donations.

The first GoFundMe account, labeled “Dr. Blasey’s security costs,” raised $210,000 in ten days. The GoFundMe campaign was created by a third party, a Georgetown law professor named Heidi Feldman, indicating that it was established “on behalf of the Ford family.” The campaign exceeded its initial goal of $175,000.

The account urged that donations be sent because of the following: “Due to death threats, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford (who uses ‘Dr. Blasey’ professionally) and her family have had to leave their residence and arrange for private security.”

Feldman assured donors that she would “make arrangements to transfer funds to Dr. Blasey.”

The second GoFundMe account, labeled “Help Christine Blasey Ford,” was set up by “Team Christine Blasey Ford.” With an initial goal of $150,000, it raised approximately $530,000 in ten days. The GoFundMe description read, “The money raised from this campaign is going directly to the Ford Family.”

The subject of Ford’s crowdfunding came up during the Senate Judicial Committee hearing on Judge Kavanaugh, when Arizona prosecutor Rachel Mitchell questioned Ford about her polygraph and legal fees.

“I’m aware that there’s been several GoFundMe sites that I haven’t had a chance to figure out how to manage those, because I’ve never had one done for me,” Ford stated.

After Mitchell asked for clarification, Ford responded, “GoFundMe sites that have raised money, primarily for our security detail. So I’m not even quite sure how to collect that money or — and how to distribute it yet. I haven’t been able to focus on that.”

Interestingly, after Ford’s mere mention at the hearing of the GoFundMe sites, more than $200,000 in donations flowed in to the “Help Christine Blasey Ford” campaign, which was, according to the New York Times, “more money than it had gained in the past eight days.”

During the questioning regarding funds and fees, Michael Bromwich, one of Ford’s lawyers, interrupted the process and said, “I can help you with that. Both her co-counsel are doing this pro bono. We are not being paid and we have no expectation of being paid.”

Bromwich represented Andrew McCabe and reportedly assisted the former FBI official in using crowdfunding to pay for legal fees.

Soon after McCabe was fired from the FBI for making false statements to investigators about leaking information to the media, a GoFundMe page, titled “Friends of Andrew McCabe,” appeared on the site. In less than one month, approximately $538,000 was raised to help cover McCabe’s legal fees.

Bromwich’s K-Street firm, The Bromwich Group, set up the GoFundMe account. Bromwich served as Director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management under former President Barak Obama. Prior to this position, he served as Inspector General of the Department of Justice under former President Bill Clinton.

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley recently expressed concern that crowdfunding may be being used in a manner that enables legal testimony to be purchased.

“You can buy a witness effectively by funding them as long as they’re saying the type of thing that you want them to say,” Turley cautioned.

The notion that money could potentially be used to purchase testimony from favorable witnesses poses a threat to a functioning legal system and the fundamental precepts of due process.

In the end, it is not merely about what an individual has to gain, but rather what our country and her people have to lose.

Bono Talks with Pope Francis about Economics, Environmentalism, and the Church Scandal

bono_pope_francis_vatican_sept_19_2018_vatican_media_cna

It is not easy to obtain a meeting with the Pope, but U2’s front man was somehow able to pull it off.

Pope Francis is the current leader of the Catholic Church. But he is also a head of state, with all of the power, influence, and interconnection with governments across the globe that goes along with being the Bishop of Rome.

At this critical time when Pope Francis is under unprecedented scrutiny, due to unanswered allegations that he knowingly protected a sexually abusive cardinal and additionally had a role in defending a clerical sex offender in Argentina, one might assume that the Pope’s schedule was being highly scrutinized by Vatican officials. Assumptions, though, often lead to mistaken conclusions, which may well be the case in this instance.

Puzzlingly, Paul David Hewson, a.k.a. Bono, lead singer of the rock group U2, was granted a meeting with the pontiff, which reportedly lasted for at least 30 minutes. At the meeting, which took place at the Casa Santa Marta hotel where Pope Francis maintains his residence, the rock singer and the Holy Father are said to have discussed topics ranging from capitalism and the environment to the clerical sex abuse scandal.

Well known as an adherent to the Christian faith, Bono is the son of a Protestant father and Catholic mother. He grew up in Ireland, a place where in the not so distant past Protestants and Catholics took up arms against one another; this was happening at the same time that the rock singer was coming of age.

Bono has actually discussed his belief in Jesus in a number of media interviews over the years. He was, however, highly criticized in Spring of 2018 by Christians of all stripes.

It was during this time period that Bono and his U2 band mates were publicly seeking to bring about the repeal of the Eighth Amendment to the Irish Constitution, an action that would ultimately lead to abortion-on-demand becoming the law of the land in the Emerald Isle.

U2 upset a sizable portion of its fan base as well as millions of pro-life adherents around the world on May 1, 2018, when it tweeted a heart-shaped graphic that read “Repeal the 8th.” The tweet essentially urged Twitter followers and fans to cast a vote for abortion in the Irish referendum. The Catholic Church was firmly opposed to the country’s proposed legalization of the life-ending procedure.

It seemed to many at the time that Bono had set aside his Christian beliefs and abandoned the vulnerable pre-born. On May 25, 2018, after all advocates, including Bono and his band, had completed their roles, the Irish people voted to repeal the constitutional amendment that had previously secured for pre-born babies the fundamental right to life.

This is why, for so many people, the sight of a sunglass-wearing rock star briefing reporters following a papal meeting was so surreal.

After his audience with the Pope, Bono addressed the Vatican press corps. Not mentioning whether his role in promoting the legalization of abortion in Ireland had been discussed, he noted that he had spoken with the pontiff about capitalism as well as about other issues in which the two shared a common interest.

Bono indicated to journalists that he and the Pope had discussed sustainable development, climate change, and the need for an equal distribution of the Earth’s resources.

“We have to re-think the wild beast that is capitalism,” the multimillionaire explained. “Although it is not immoral, it is amoral and it requires our instruction and he [Pope Francis] is very keen on that.”

Bono then revealed that a topic the two had discussed involved one about which the Pope has chosen to remain silent, i.e., the recent revelations regarding a multitude of sexual abuse allegations against the clergy of the Catholic Church.

Regarding the sex abuse scandal, Bono said, “I explained how it looks to some people like the abusers are being more protected than the victims, and you could see the pain in his face,” the U2 lead singer said, adding, “I thought he was sincere.”

In 2018 new allegations surfaced against the Catholic Church, which indicated that major church figures had protected priests who were accused of sexually abusing children, and Pope Francis himself was brought directly into the scandal.

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, who previously served as the Vatican’s ambassador to the United States, accused the current pope of having knowledge of the serious accusations against former U.S. Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, who was accused of taking sexual advantage of young seminarians.

Archbishop Viganò asserts that Pope Francis “knew from at least June 23, 2013, that Cardinal McCarrick was a serial predator.” He further asserts that instead of the Pope holding Cardinal McCarrick accountable, he shielded him and made him a trusted counselor.

Pope Francis has not yet publicly responded to the allegations. In August 2018, when the Pope was asked about the subject by reporters, he replied, “I will say sincerely that I must say this, to you and all of you who are interested: Read the document carefully and judge it for yourselves.”

“When a little time has passed and you have the conclusions, perhaps I will talk,” the Pope added.

The issues discussed by Pope Francis and Bono have worldwide political, economic, and ethical implications.

It is odd, to say the least, that Pope Francis’s communications on such serious matters would have come to the international public square via a publicist in celebrity clothing.

John Kerry’s Telling Remarks

9a3e5076-8576-46c6-bfd6-f9171ac99463

John Kerry appeared on a recent cable broadcast of “Real Time with Bill Maher” to promote a book, increase his possible presidential profile, and deliver a Left Coast attack on the current sitting president.

The segment did not go as swimmingly as Kerry likely intended. In what appeared to be a pre-written attempt at humor, he told Maher, “He [President Donald Trump] is the first president that I know of who spends more time reading his Twitter ‘likes’ than his briefing books or the Constitution of the United States.”

The former secretary of state-turned-comic received the usual applause from the left-leaning audience, but few laughs. He went on to acknowledge that he has been engaged in what many government officials and private citizens as well view as rogue diplomacy.

In what appears to have been an effort to revive the now-defunct Iran nuclear deal, the probable presidential aspirant revealed that behind-the-scenes he has been in talks with a high-ranking representative of Iran.

Prior to the “Real Time” venue, in a separate media appearance on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show, Kerry had already admitted that he had met several times with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif, and that the talks had taken place without the approval of the Trump administration.

On the actual day of the “Real Time” taping, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo took to the podium regarding Kerry’s unauthorized meetings.

“You can’t find precedent for this in U.S. history, and Secretary Kerry ought not to engage in that kind of behavior,” Pompeo said in a press conference at the State Department. “It’s inconsistent with what foreign policy of the United States is as directed by this president, and it is beyond inappropriate for him to be engaged.”

“I’ll leave the legal determinations to others,” Pompeo added. “But what Secretary Kerry has done is unseemly and unprecedented. This is a former secretary of State engaged with the world’s largest state sponsor of terror.”

The day following Kerry’s appearance on Maher’s show, Pompeo took to Twitter to post a pair of tweets that focused on the Obama administration’s dubious Iran nuclear agreement, which was arranged under Kerry’s stewardship.

“What @JohnKerry has done by engaging with #Iran’s regime, the world’s top state sponsor of terror, is unseemly, unprecedented, and inconsistent with U.S. foreign policy. The deal failed. Let it go,” Pompeo said in a tweet.

The secretary of state then added the following second post: “#JCPOA [the Iran nuclear deal is officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action] didn’t stop all paths for #Iran to develop nuclear weapons, contrary to the way it was sold to the American people.”

The “legal determinations” to which Pompeo made reference in his press conference involve the Logan Act, the same law that then-acting Attorney General Sally Yates used against then-National Security Advisor designee Michael Flynn.

The Logan Act does not apply to an incoming official engaged in transition activities for a new administration, which was the case with General Flynn. It would, however, appropriately apply to a former secretary of state who may have misused his contacts and secretly negotiated with a dangerous foreign power without authorization from the current administration.

Depending upon the specific details of Kerry’s interaction with Zarif, he could be subject to the provisions of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), which requires registration and transparency by individuals or companies acting on behalf of foreign governments, political parties, or persons. This is the identical statute that was used to prosecute former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort.

Kerry appears to be unconcerned about the remarks that he made regarding his potential illegal behavior, focusing instead on how his humor is playing out with the leftist base and the greater public.

On Maher’s show, Kerry schooled the audience on how democracy relies on the truth, but the truth rings hollow with regard to current pertinent events surrounding Kerry, as well as some significant ones in the past.

“Unfortunately, we have a president,” Kerry said, “literally, for whom the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is three different things…”

It is the height of irony that the former secretary of state would invoke the value of truth. When Kerry returned from Vietnam, he used the anti-war sentiment that was prevalent in the media to acquire fame by making himself a leader of the group Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

Kerry publicly relayed a number of gruesome tales, which accused U.S. military personnel of engaging in brutal war crimes. He now refers to his slanderous stories impugning the U.S. armed forces as an exaggeration.

As a set up to what Kerry must have thought was his line of the evening, he professed to not want to “get into a real riff” on it, but then suddenly the following words rolled off his tongue.

Speaking about the current president, Kerry said that he has “the maturity of an eight-year-old boy with the insecurity of a teenage girl.”

Kerry presently appears to harbor an intense desire to be the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party in the next election cycle. Among his many celebrated causes, he has professed to be a staunch advocate for women’s rights.

It will be interesting to see whether Kerry, with his “teenage girls” comment and his characterization of young women as “insecure,” will be held to account or even asked to explain how blatant stereotyping and not so subtle ridicule is somehow acceptable in the present day and age.

Les Moonves’s Career at CBS Comes to an End

djis2e_uwaar4-y

In July of 2018, the New Yorker’s Ronan Farrow completed a detailed investigation, centering on sexual misconduct allegations from six women against CBS Chairman and CEO Les Moonves.

The women claimed that Moonves had propositioned and/or had forcible physical contact with them, threatened retaliation against those who had rejected him, and otherwise maintained a workplace in which sexual harassment went unabated.

Allegations put forth by the women suggested that a toxic culture existed at CBS. When the allegations went public, Moonves responded at the time with an acknowledgement that he was responsible for making “some women uncomfortable.” However, he denied claims that he had harmed the careers of those who had resisted him.

It looked as though Moonves was on his way to weathering the #MeToo storm. CBS had launched an investigation into the allegations in Farrow’s report. However, Moonves was allowed to remain on the job while the investigation of sexual misconduct proceeded, unlike many other figures who had been accused of sexual impropriety.

Then, like a series of aftershocks after an earthquake, an additional six women stepped forward, via reporting by Farrow, with accusations against Moonves.

The most recent alleged incidents of sexual misconduct purportedly took place over a span of 30 years from the 1980s to the early 2000s.

The additional claims against Moonves by the second group of women contain more serious allegations than those reported by Farrow earlier in the year. This latest set of allegations includes incidents in which the entertainment executive is alleged to have forced victims to engage in sexual activity, exposed himself to alleged victims, or used physical violence and intimidation against them. Some of the women also claim that Moonves retaliated against them professionally after they refused to comply.

Some of the more recent accusers have chosen to go on the record and shed their anonymity, including a television executive whose claims date back to the 1980s and a former assistant who recounted an incident from 1994.

In a statement to the New Yorker, Moonves acknowledged that three of the encounters occurred and claimed they were consensual. He flatly denied using his position in a retaliatory way to interfere with the careers of the women.

Under the circumstances, options appear to be limited in this case. The relevant statute of limitations does not allow a proceeding using criminal law, and obtaining witnesses and/or documents from thirty or forty years ago poses a great deal of difficulty.

What really caused Moonves’s tenure at CBS to end, prior to the conclusion of the investigations, were reports in numerous media outlets that negotiations were taking place concerning a proposed exit package for the television executive that involved a large dollar amount.

The most recent accusers were prompted in part to come forward due to the public reports of Moonves’s exit package, which was said to be valued at approximately $100 million.

“Many of the women found that very, very frustrating,” Farrow told CNN. “They felt this was a board that has let a powerful man who makes a lot of money for this company, in the words of one person, ‘get away with it.’”

The end result is that six weeks after Farrow published the first allegations against him and twenty-three years after he first joined CBS, Moonves has been forced out of the network.

However, the previously reported $100 million payment package to Moonves is likely to be eliminated or drastically reduced, due to the increased potential culpability relating to the allegations of the second group of women as well as the cumulative effect of the allegations of all twelve accusers.

CBS’s leverage against Moonves has been significantly increased because the company is now able to claim that the executive may be terminated “for cause.”

Significantly, the exit agreement reportedly also includes a settlement of the litigation between Moonves and Shari Redstone, the controlling shareholder of both CBS and Viacom. Moonves and Redstone had been in a heated legal battle over whether to combine CBS and Viacom, with Redstone urging a merger and Moonves resisting such a move.

With Moonves gone, the merger is highly likely to take place in the very near future.