I keep seeing the question asked, “Why now for Weinstein?”\u00a0 The New York Times went after him and the\u00a0Great Wall of Media is crumbling.\u00a0 The allegations are not new, and there are some big, popular names behind some of them.\u00a0 Crusading UN globe-trotter Angelina Jolie, for instance, could have made this “a thing” on her own if she had set to do it — years ago.\u00a0 So why now?<\/p>\n
I think it’s a shot across Hillary Clinton’s bulbous bow.\u00a0 While Democrats are split about Clinton, one thing they all have in common is that they were all wounded when she did not win in 2016.\u00a0 The New York Times certainly love them some HRC, but these things are relative.\u00a0 The Times endorsed Clinton for President in the 2008 primary, and again in 2016, neither of which gained Hillary the job.\u00a0 The Clintons themselves were not wounded by the loss, however.\u00a0 The Clinton money machine works, but not as one might expect.\u00a0 It doesn’t sell influence to gain position; rather it courts influence to make money.\u00a0 While she wouldn’t mind winning an election, Hillary Clinton is perfectly happy to go on losing them and cackle all the way to an offshore bank.<\/p>\n
When there is not an election to be won, the Clinton machine selects an issue, such as Haiti or Russians, to ride like a mule, collecting cash.\u00a0 The Obama years, with Hillary first employed by the President, and then preparing for the inevitable run for the top post, were the only eight years since 1992 that a Clinton hasn’t menaced the Democratic Party.\u00a0 The past year has already featured several disastrous and highly amusing attempts to roll out Hillary’s daughter Chelsea, widely believed among Democrats to be the daughter of Bill Clinton.\u00a0 This is one more reason the Clinton’s won’t go away.\u00a0 The Clinton machine has reproduced, and is vigorously defending the pupa while its shell hardens.<\/p>\n
Weinstein is part of the Clinton money machine.\u00a0 An old friend and a Hollywood king-maker, this is the guy you used to need to whip the lefty arts caucus into line, in the same sense that the House Whip is responsible for ensuring the proper turnout for a “whipped” vote.<\/p>\n
Even though he’s good with Obama, Weinstein is famous as a Clinton protectee.\u00a0 To Obama he’s just another guy from the ‘hood.\u00a0 To the Clinton’s he’s a key part of the defense mechanism.\u00a0 Why does Hollywood love Hillary Clinton?\u00a0 Weinstein is must certainly be part of that, as there’s no “tingle up the leg” constituency outide the likes of Lena Dunham.\u00a0 Obama sycophancy, which needs neither aiding nor abetting, does not need a man like Weinstein.\u00a0 He’s just another corpulent ATM to the Obamas.<\/p>\n
Weinstein lives within the well-fortified walls of Castle Clinton-On-Styx.\u00a0 Historically, nobody touches Weinstein without paying the price.\u00a0 The Democrat-Media complex would swing into action and destroy any threat to Harvey.\u00a0 See what happened to the Clinton surrogates who tried to come out swinging against Bourdain?\u00a0 That’s why this is such a big deal.\u00a0 If you have wondered why some movie producer getting called out for nefarious Shenanigans warrants a week of coverage. it’s not because of who he is or who his accusers are — it’s because he lives within Fortress Clinton, and the media people know it.\u00a0 This was an inside job, a knife between the ribs from not just a guard, no the Captain of the Guard, but from the Lord High Chancellor.\u00a0 The New York Times was not suddenly forced into this by overwhelming evidence, which has been available for years.\u00a0 They weren’t pushed into executing Weinstein– they jumped.\u00a0 This is a demonstration of power by the progressive forces raised in part by the Clintons, but who were far more effectively used by Obama in showing raw power.\u00a0 Bill Clinton was smooth, but pragmatic.\u00a0 Hillary is awkward and stupid but driven to ideology like Stalin.<\/p>\n
I do not think that Obama called the hit — The New York Times can do the math on their own, and perhaps with more data available than anybody else — ever.\u00a0 The Clinton machine has become toxic for Democrats.<\/p>\n
Democrats are not tired of everything Clinton brings to the table, but they are sick of seeing the money machine operate to the personal benefit of the Clinton family, which hasn’t actually won a national contest since before most living Democrats can remember.\u00a0 The Clinton money machine still works, and it works too well for the likes of Democrats interested in winning elections and ruining this country.\u00a0 The Clinton money machine serves the Clinton’s, and their political goals are finally being seen by the left as merely another Clinton Incorporated marketing ploy.<\/p>\n
In Hillary Clinton’s view, winning elections is for suckers.\u00a0 OH, and for offspring.\u00a0 Chelsea will have to win at something before she can take over the family grifting business.\u00a0 The husband-ette’s hedge fund might not torun a profit someday, but the Clinton money machine actually profits from misery.\u00a0 Losing will not hurt Chelsea in the long run, but she will need some victories to keep the ruse going.\u00a0 Democrats who are tired of losing have taken the largest shot to date at the Clintons.\u00a0 “Why Now?” is the question the right is asking about Weinstein.\u00a0 “Why won’t they Go Away?” is the question that an increasing number of Democrats have struggled with for the last year.\u00a0 I believe that these two things are related.\u00a0 The Weinsten takedown is a bit of palace thuggery.\u00a0 Now no place is safe for the Clintons.\u00a0 They are being invited off the world stage by the sort of people whose offers are not refused.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
I keep seeing the question asked, “Why now for Weinstein?”\u00a0 The New York Times went after him and the\u00a0Great Wall of Media is crumbling.\u00a0 The allegations are not new, and there are some big, popular names behind some of them.\u00a0 Crusading UN globe-trotter Angelina Jolie, for instance, could have made this “a thing” on her own if she had set to do it — years ago.\u00a0 So why now?<\/p>\n
I think it’s a shot across Hillary Clinton’s bulbous bow.\u00a0 While Democrats are split about Clinton, one thing they all have in common is that they were all wounded when she did not win in 2016.\u00a0 The New York Times certainly love them some HRC, but these things are relative.\u00a0 The Times endorsed Clinton for President in the 2008 … Continue reading