Christian Blogger, Veronica Partridge, Takes a Stance Against Lust-Inducing Leggings, Gets Bashed By Conservative-Hating Liberals

People.com:

While the debate continues on whether or not leggings are pants, one woman has made a choice to not wear the popular spandex bottoms in public for a very specific reason. Veronica Partridge, a Christian wife, mother, farmer and homemaker based in Oregon, posted on her personal blog about why she has made the decision to no longer wear leggings.

“Was it possible my wearing leggings could cause a man, other than my husband, to think lustfully about my body?” she wrote in a post that has now been shared over 50,000 times on Facebook. “Sure, if a man wants to look, they are going to look, but why entice them?”

She made the decision to stop wearing yoga pants and similar bottoms out in public after having her beliefs about the temptation associated with leggings confirmed by her friends and her husband.

“It had been something that was on my mind for quite some time,” she tells PEOPLE. “I didn’t want to possibly cause another man, especially a married man, to look at me in a way I believe he should only look at his wife.”

Partridge makes it clear, however, that these are her own beliefs, and she has no intentions of pushing them onto others.

“I was never trying to start a movement or try to tell women how to dress,” she says. “I was just sharing my personal decision on my personal blog.”

The lifestyle blogger says she was surprised by how much attention — mostly negative — this particular post received.

“Never did I expect it to go so viral,” Partridge says. “If I knew it was going to, I would have never posted it.”

Mind you, this is her choice. A decision she posted on her OWN blog. Some Godless social liberal must've seen it, ran with it and got with a bunch of their friends to spread her testimony, while intent on smearing her at the same time. Of course she doesn't have to apologize for anything and of course, no remowned feminist will come out to publicly defend her because of her conservatives views. It's how they do.

RELATED: You Shouldn’t Judge This Blogger For Giving Up Leggings To Protect Her Relationship

Newt Gingrich Fires Back at Bob Schieffer over Steve Scalise - "Being in the Klan is OK If You Are a Democrat"

RELATED: The smearing of Steve Scalise

Actress Kaley Cuoco Asked If She Is A Feminist, Her Response Made Feminists Angry

DCGazette.com:

You will seldom hear a Hollywood actress speaking out against the craziness of feminism these days. That’s why it was so refreshing to read the views of actress Actress Kaley Cuoco-Sweeting on the issue. She stars in the popular sitcom, “The Big Bang Theory”, and she is making quite an impact of her own. When asked in a Redbook interview if she was a feminist, she responded with,

“Is it bad if I say no? It’s not really something I think about.

Things are different now, and I know a lot of the work that paved the way for women happened before I was around… I was never that feminist girl demanding equality, but maybe that’s because I’ve never really faced inequality.

I cook for Ryan five nights a week: It makes me feel like a housewife; I love that. I know it sounds old-fashioned, but I like the idea of women taking care of their men. I’m so in control of my work that I like coming home and serving him. My mom was like that, so I think it kind of rubbed off.”

My goodness, did a Hollywood actress just say that she LIKED serving her husband? That poor naive woman! Doesn’t she know that taking care of your husband makes you weak? Hasn’t anyone told her that in order to be equal you have to participate in vile acts, like dressing up in vagina costumes or writing demands on your naked body? I mean, how else do you expect to be taken seriously?

Liberals have already started attacking Kaley on Twitter for her comments about feminism. One user tweeted,

“How can someone who is reaping the benefits of the feminist movement (via her large paycheck) not be a “feminist”?

Another offended liberal wrote, “Kaley Cuoco-Sweeting’s thoughts on feminism are as tragic as her haircut. Barf.”

Kaley responded on twitter by saying ” I apologize if I offended anyone. Anyone who knows me, knows my heart, and knows what I really meant. ”

RELATED: Kaley Cuoco-Sweeting apologizes for saying she's not a feminist

Despite Highest Poverty Numbers in 50 Years, Barack Obama Okays Illegals to Compete for Jobs in U.S.

HotAir.com:

It simply doesn’t make sense in any sort of context that says the job of the President of the United States is to look after the welfare of the country’s citizens:

The official U.S. unemployment rate has indeed fallen steadily during the past few years, but the economic recovery has created the fewest jobs relative to the previous employment peak of any prior recovery. The labor-force participation rate recently touched a 36-year low of 62.7%. The number of Americans not in the labor force set a record high of 92.6 million in September. Part-time work and long-term unemployment are still well above levels from before the financial crisis.

Worse, middle-class incomes continue to fall during the recovery, losing even more ground than during the December 2007 to June 2009 recession. The number in poverty has also continued to soar, to about 50 million Americans. That is the highest level in the more than 50 years that the U.S. Census has been tracking poverty. Income inequality has risen more in the past few years than at any recent time.

The true indicator of the actual unemployment rate is the labor participation rate. It is at a 36 year low. The fudged numbers used by the US government hides the actual depth of joblessness problem. And, frankly, it’s a “buyers market” in the labor market. Lots of labor competition for few jobs. That’s one reason you don’t see incomes rising and you do see underemployed Americans.

So let’s introduce about 5 million illegal workers from other countries and enable them to compete in an already depressed labor market and while we’re at it, let’s agitate for a raise in the minimum wage.

Mind blown.  How do you square that sort of action with your oath of office if you’re the President of the United States?

RELATED:  Immigration amnesty will hurt Obama's most loyal supporters: African-Americans

Godless Homosexuals Angry at Michelle and Jim Bob Duggar for Removing Same-Sex Kisses From Personal Website

People.com:

Following their daughter Jessa's recent nuptials, during which she and husband Ben Seewald locked lips for the first time, later posting a steamy kissing photo to Instagram, Michelle and Jim Bob Duggar were feeling the love.

The 19 Kids and Counting parentals posted their own smooch pic to Facebook with the message "God designed marriage to be a loving, dynamic relationship between a husband and wife for a lifetime ... We challenge all married couples to take a happily married picture and post it here."

It seems they may have gotten more than they asked for as happily married same-sex couples also responded to the call, posting their own loving kiss pics.

But now one man claims the photo he posted of himself and his husband was taken down. "Oh no, I've been banned from the Duggar Family Official Facebook page!" wrote John Becker on his own Facebook page on Tuesday. 

"I posted this photo of Michael and me with the following comment: 'Happily married for nearly nine years; working hard for #MarriageEquality for all loving couples. It was getting lots of likes, but the Duggars must not have liked it very much – they pulled it down and blocked me from posting, liking, or commenting on the page altogether. How sad that they feel so threatened by other loving marriages."

TLC, the network that airs 19 Kids and Counting declined to comment on the matter, but following the alleged removals, the Duggars took to their page with Bible verses as well as the following message.

"We love these wise words from Rick Warren: 'Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone's lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. Second is that to love someone means that you must agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don't have to compromise convictions to be compassionate.' "

And of course, the hellbound gays and their advocates in the morally bankrupt, liberal media pretend to be "shocked" and "outraged" that a Christian family would do such a thing. Can you imagine the same "outrage" for a noted atheist couple removing a Christian couple's display of loving God from their website? Probably not.

RELATED: The Duggars Defend Ben and Jessa, Other Married Couples Take to the Duggar's Facebook to Support Family

Sean Hannity: Jon Stewart ‘Has His Head So Far Up Obama’s Ass’

Mediaite.com:

A new Jon Stewart interview out today includes the late night comic going off on Fox News. In particular, Stewart honed in on Sean Hannity as “probably the most loathsome dude over there.”

“That’s just pure cynicism, and it’s horrible,” Stewart said. “Everything is presented in as devious a manner as it could be possibly be presented.”

Well, Hannity fired back in a statement to Politico that mostly just highlighted how bad the economy is under President Obama. He refers to Obama as Stewart’s “beloved president,” and asks, “Do I even need to remind him about keeping our doctors, our health plans and saving money? And how is that healthcare website working out? Or Iraq, Isis, the ‘Russian reset’?”

And then Hannity went for the jugular:

“Jon’s problem is he has his head so far up Obama’s ass he cannot see clearly, he is obviously better suited to reading his joke writers material, and making his clapping seal audience happy.”

He also brings up how Stewart’s Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear featured Cat Stevens, now Yusuf Islam, who made comments many interpreted as support for a fatwa against author Salman Rushdie.

RELATED: Jon Stewart Whacks Bush As Inferior to Jimmy Carter, No Troublesome Facts Allowed

Hollyweird Liberal Lena Dunham Comes Out As A Child Molester

TruthRevolt.com:

On Saturday, HBO’s Lena Dunham sent a “cease and desist” letter to TruthRevolt demanding that we remove an article we posted last Wednesday on sections of her book, Not That Kind of Girl. The letter threatened legal action if we did not both remove that article, as well as print a note, the suggested language of which read as follows:

We recently published a story stating that Ms. Dunham engaged in sexual conduct with her sister.  The story was false, and we deeply regret having printed it.  We apologize to Ms. Dunham, her sister, and their parents, for this false story.

We refuse. We refuse to withdraw our story or apologize for running it, because quoting a woman’s book does not constitute a “false” story, even if she is a prominent actress and left-wing activist. Lena Dunham may not like our interpretation of her book, but unfortunately for her and her attorneys, she wrote that book – and the First Amendment covers a good deal of material she may not like.

In particular, the letter from Ms. Dunham’s lawyers labeled as “false and defamatory” our claims that she “experiment[ed] sexually with her younger sister Grace,” “experimented with her six-year younger sister’s vagina,” and “use[d] her little sister at times essentially as a sexual outlet.” In her desire to curb First Amendment freedoms, Dunham’s attorneys threatened legal action seeking “millions of dollars; punitive damages which can be a multiple of up to ten times actual damages; and injunctive relief.”

We assume that both Ms. Dunham and her attorneys are capable of reading Ms. Dunham’s book, which contains the following direct excerpts:

“Do we all have uteruses?” I asked my mother when I was seven.

“Yes,” she told me. “We’re born with them, and with all our eggs, but they start out very small. And they aren’t ready to make babies until we’re older.”

I looked at my sister, now a slim, tough one-year-old, and at her tiny belly. I imagined her eggs inside her, like the sack of spider eggs in Charlotte’s Web, and her uterus, the size of a thimble.
“Does her vagina look like mine?”

“I guess so,” my mother said. “Just smaller.”

One day, as I sat in our driveway in Long Island playing with blocks and buckets, my curiosity got the best of me. Grace was sitting up, babbling and smiling, and I leaned down between her legs and carefully spread open her vagina. She didn’t resist, and when I saw what was inside I shrieked. “My mother came running. “Mama, Mama! Grace has something in there!”

My mother didn’t bother asking why I had opened Grace’s vagina. This was within the spectrum of things that I did. She just got on her knees and looked for herself. It quickly became apparent that Grace had stuffed six or seven pebbles in there. My mother removed them patiently while Grace cackled, thrilled that her prank had been such a success.

And this:

As she grew, I took to bribing her for her time and affection: one dollar in quarters if I could do her makeup like a “motorcycle chick.” Three pieces of candy if I could kiss her on the lips for five seconds. Whatever she wanted to watch on TV if she would just “relax on me.” Basically, anything a sexual predator might do to woo a small suburban girl I was trying.

And this:

I shared a bed with my sister, Grace, until I was seventeen years old. She was afraid to sleep alone and would begin asking me around 5:00 P.M. every day whether she could sleep with me. I put on a big show of saying no, taking pleasure in watching her beg and sulk, but eventually I always relented. Her sticky, muscly little body thrashed beside me every night as I read Anne Sexton, watched reruns of SNL, sometimes even as I slipped my hand into my underwear to figure some stuff out.

If Ms. Dunham says that our quotations from her book were “false,” or that our interpretation of those events was libelous under the law, then we look forward to asking her, in her deposition, about why they appeared in her book. We also look forward to asking her why she believes it is now appropriate for a 28-year-old woman to make light of opening her baby sister’s vagina, paying her with candies for prolonged kisses on the lips in the manner of a “sexual predator,” or masturbating in bed next to her prepubescent sister.

If Ms. Dunham says that our quotations from her book were “false,” then she should explain whether her statements in which she accused a young college Republican of rape were also false. We look forward to asking her about that in her deposition as well, given that she has reportedly refused to cooperate with Oberlin police to track down the alleged perpetrator, which leaves other young women at risk if her accusations are true.

It is worth noting that Truth Revolt was far from the only outlet to point out these troubling sections in Ms. Dunham’s book. National Review’s Kevin Williamson wrote of “Lena Dunham’s sexual abuse, specifically, of her younger sister, Grace” – the article that first alerted us to Ms. Dunham’s disturbing writings. The Daily Caller’s Derek Hunter has written of Ms. Dunham’s “gleeful sexual abuse of her infant sister, Grace.”

After Truth Revolt’s report on Ms. Dunham’s book, Ms. Dunham took to Twitter with what she termed a “rage spiral,” terming accusations that “I molested my little sister isn’t just LOL – it’s really fucking upsetting and disgusting.” She added, “And by the way, if you were a little kid and never looked at another little kid’s vagina, well, congrats to you.” No, congrats to you, Ms. Dunham – you’ve managed to lead a life so free of criticism that you find it “upsetting and disgusting” when some folks are offended that you “carefully spread open” your baby sister’s vagina, or paid her to kiss you on the mouth in the manner of a “sexual predator,” or masturbated in bed next to her as a teenager. In the real world, folks find such behavior upsetting and disgusting, not reporting on such behavior.

Bullies like Ms. Dunham may believe that firing off legal threats against those who exercise First Amendment rights is perfectly legitimate. But for a woman who proclaims to be an advocate for freedom of speech to attempt to shut down such speech based on her own apparent embarrassment at her own disclosures in her own book demonstrates the totalitarianism of those on the left – and those in the legal and media establishment who enable them.

RELATED: Concha: Lena Dunham’s Disturbing Passage Deserves All the Scorn It’s Getting

Bristol Palin Rips Liberal Media Coverage of Family Brawl, Tells Her Side of Story

Mediaite.com:

So by now, you’ve all heard about that infamous Palin family brawl and maybe even listened to the audio of Bristol Palin telling the police what happened. Well, now Palin has written a lengthy blog post not only clearing up exactly what happened, but lashing out at the media for its coverage of her family.

ADVERTISEMENT

Palin says a friend got knocked out by some guy, whose mom pushed her little sister Willow when she got upset with him. Bristol went to confront her, but ran into some giant man who reportedly shouted, “You cunt! Get the fuck out of here, you slut!”

And according to Palin, he proceeded to start pushing her down to the ground. She hit him in self-defense, and describes the intense situation as “scary and infuriating.”

Palin then takes the opportunity to go after the media for latching onto rumors and random people as eyewitnesses. She thinks this is part of a broader pattern of how conservative women are treated:

Violence against women is never okay… Even if that violence occurs against conservative women. Imagine for a second the outrage that would happen if Chelsea Clinton had gotten pushed by some guy. Had she tried to defend herself, the liberal media would’ve held her up as some feminist hero.

But it wasn’t Chelsea.

It wasn’t Hillary.

It wasn’t someone they liked or someone they agreed with.

It was a conservative.

And once again, the hypocrisy of the media is laid bare.

RELATED: CNN’s Carol Costello Apologizes for Comments About Palin Brawl

Jon Stewart Criticized Democrat Hypocrisy on Campaign Spending

CanadaFreePress.com:

Previously, we’ve discussed Obama’s belief that the GOP is the ‘party of billionaires.’  He made that proclamation while on his way to attend a $32,000.00-per-plate fundraiser at the home of a billionaire real estate mogul named - again, not a joke -“Rich Richman.” We’ve also talked about the desperate letters which ask people to give Obama five dollars so he can stave off impeachment.  ...And we’ve acknowledged his refusal to skip fundraisers in favor of actually doing his job because, as his administration puts it, schedule changes might “alarm the American people or create a false sense of crisis.”

Yet all across the country, Democrats are regularly outspending their Republican rivals as they desperately cling to control of the Senate, and the “beg letters” continue to pile up. All of this, while Obama and his allies run around moaning about how Republicans love fat cats and how there’s too much money in politics. The hypocrisy is painfully obvious.

Democrats love money in politics, as long as it’s their money in politics.

There’s nothing new about that, but it’s rare to see one of the faithful call them on their fearmongering cash-grab B.S. 

Enter left-wing icon Jon Stewart.  You may know him as the host of the Daily Show. ...Or possibly as the man NBC wanted to install as host of Meet the Press, before settling for non-comedian Chuck Todd:

Et tu, Jon Stewart?

RELATED: Ed Schultz Slams Party Apostate Jon Stewart for Criticizing Dems' Hypocrisy on Campaign Spending

Feminists, You Can't Pick Your Battles

BloombergView.com:

Shikha Dalmia -- who, I should note, in the interests of full disclosure, is a colleague of my husband’s and a charming dinner companion, as well as a Bloomberg View contributor -- recently wrote a column for Reason magazine and the Week about affirmative consent laws. I’ve already said my piece about affirmative-consent laws, to which I will just add this: I am disturbed as hell by the number of feminists I’ve seen defending these laws on the grounds that of course they will rarely be enforced. Why pass laws you don’t intend to enforce? 

Unenforceable laws weaken our whole legal framework by conceding that really, the whole thing is just an arbitrary exercise of power by authorities -- a theory of justice that has not, I must point out, generally redounded to the benefit of women and minorities. It is, in the words of P.J. O’Rourke, “Pinning a ‘kick me!’ sign on the backside of the majesty of the law."
But Dalmia makes a different argument:

The truth is that, except in the first flush of infatuation, both partners are rarely equally excited. At any given moment, one person wants sex more passionately than the other. What's more, whether due to nurture or nature, there is usually a difference in tempo between men and women, with women generally requiring more "convincing." And someone who requires convincing is not yet in a position to offer "affirmative" much less "enthusiastic" consent. That doesn't mean that the final experience is unsatisfying -- but it does mean that initially one has to be coaxed out of one's comfort zone. Affirmative consent would criminalize that.

This invited a response, titled "Consent Laws Are Ruining Sex, Says Writer Who Probably Has Awful Sex," from feminist site Jezebel.

"This argument is bad and dumb for many reasons," writes Erin Gloria Ryan, adding that the assumption that a man trying to convince a tired woman to have sex "while she wonders to herself if this is what she really wanted is an assessment of heterosexual intercourse so grim that I feel a great deal of pity for the person whose life experiences have led to those conclusions. And even if that were the sexual status quo, why on earth would we defend it?"

Ryan goes on: "Secondly, the writer assumes that men are always the sexual assailants and women are always the victims and that rape always occurs in the context of a heterosexual coupling, which is so far from being an accurate statement that it's damaging to male victims of sexual assault and victims of female assailants."

One hardly even knows where to begin with this. First of all, there’s the awful reading comprehension, which converted “sometimes one partner wants sex more than the other, and coaxes the other person into it, which can sometimes lead to great sex that you’d have regretted missing” into “close your eyes and think of your children.”

And then there’s the sex shaming.

This is the sort of thing that feminists are supposed to be against. It frequently gets deployed against left-leaning feminists, and for that matter, any woman who argues that women belong in the workplace but might have trouble staying there because things are still just a teensy bit stacked against them. 

A certain sort of male commenter seems to take it as a given that any woman who argues that we need further progress toward equality is a frigid, castrating she-male whose husband or boyfriend would be too spineless and weak to satisfy them sexually even if they weren’t so busy polishing their Precious Moments figurines. And though they seem to think this is so obvious as to go without saying, they don’t; they write you four-page, one-paragraph e-mails or pepper your comments section with ALL CAPS!!!

When guys do this to them, left feminists easily recognize it for what it is: reactionary, misogynist bile spewed by angry people who couldn’t think of an actual argument. So why does Erin Gloria Ryan feel free to deploy it against a woman with whom she disagrees? Why didn’t her colleagues at Jezebel take her aside and say, “Hey, that’s not how we roll. We’re against sex shaming, remember?”

This is not the first time I’ve run into this idea that all’s fair as long as you restrict it to conservatives. Although the exact post seems to be lost to the mists of Internet time, I’ll never forget when a woman at a major feminist site accused me of holding the political opinions I do because -- wait for it -- I was trying to catch a man. Or the liberal men too numerous to count, or at least bother counting up over the years, who have hailed me with every misogynist slur you could imagine, and a few I’m sure you couldn’t. 

This is the exact opposite of the way things should work. If you want to argue for a principle, you need to embody that principle consistently -- at least, if you want to convince anyone else. Libertarians who argue that private charity can make up for government safety nets should be giving more of their income to private welfare charities than any other group. Conservatives who think that abortion should be completely illegal should not go and obtain them for their own daughters. People who oppose school choice should not send their children to private schools or relocate to an affluent suburb when they have kids. And feminists who are against sex shaming should be outraged when it happens to people whose ideas they despise, as outraged as they certainly are when it happens to one of their own. Otherwise, people just smirk at your “principle” and see it for what it is: something between sheer tribal hypocrisy and a lie.

Here’s what feminism actually means, or should: Women -- all women -- are just as entitled to hold opinions as anyone else. And here’s the really crazy part: They’re entitled to hold opinions that are completely different from yours, even if you are also a woman. And while you are absolutely entitled to argue that those ideas are immoral, impractical, befuddled, benighted, unscrupulous, intolerable and downright wrongheaded, you should not make disparaging remarks about the speaker's sex life. If you do, you should feel ashamed of yourself. And in this case, so should any feminists who manage to call out every third-tier state Republican campaign worker for misogynist comments but don’t find the time to condemn one at one of their own Internet homes.

RELATED:  Questions About California’s New Campus Rape Law

Global Warming: Al Gore’s Gold Mine

BizPacReview.com:

Hope springs eternal that some of America’s political blowhards will ease into the sunset, crushed into silence by life’s relentless realities. But there is no such luck when it comes to Al Gore and his climate mafia. Gore’s sizable bank account must be running low, because he is trying to crank up his propaganda machine again to tap into the “green pork bonanza.”

Gore made hundreds of millions of dollars from the hoopla surrounding his 2006 film, “An Inconvenient Truth,” and resulting financial ventures. The bonanza happened in spite of the fact that a judge in London’s highest court ruled the documentary was “one-sided,” not an impartial analysis and clearly “a political film.”

The movie was based on a 1998 paper by Michael Mann, who “reported” sharp rises in global temperatures and argued that immediate global action must be taken to prevent uncontrollable temperature rises. But the real inconvenient truth is that the Mann paper was based on sloppy research. It has since been contradicted, and its projections have not materialized. In fact, there has “been no statistically significant increase in annual global temperatures” in the 16 years since the paper was written, the United Kingdom’s national weather office said. Global temperatures crested in 1998. Even the United Nations has finally admitted that such temperatures have not risen in the past 16 years.

Gore’s apocalyptic predictions were false, and his credibility has been shredded among objective observers. Today, polar ice caps are larger. Polar bear populations have increased. The West Antarctic ice sheet’s reduction was caused by sub-glacial volcanic magma. Americans have noticed that winters are getting colder.

President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have joined the climate mafia, calling climate change “the world’s largest weapon of mass destruction” and insisting global warming is now “settled science, a scientific consensus.” Really? Well, I invite readers to ask true scientists whether they respect consensus thinking. Science is all about evidence, not consensus. In fact, science doesn’t respect consensus or majority views. Data, evidence and observations, not projections, are what convince true scientists whether a theory is wrong or right.

Global warming has been Gore’s gold mine. He has spent the past 15 years mining for profits and huckstering for carbon credits, and he’s made a killing. After all, he needed a lot of money to pay the electric bills for his 20-room Tennessee mansion’s annual 221,000 kilowatt-hours, more than 20 times the national average, according to ABC News.

Now, I don’t begrudge a man making money. But what’s wrong with Gore’s campaign is that, under the guise of protecting the Earth, Gore’s propaganda juggernaut has spread an agenda of hysteria and alarm based on poor science. He declares as fact that humans are the primary cause of global warming. He denies that natural phenomena causes most climate change. And yet, the Earth’s climate changes all the time. On average, the Earth experiences a warming cycle approximately every 1,500 years, and it has gone through dozens of what scientists call “little Ice Ages.”

Gore and other leftists have profited over the years by creating Chicken Little, sky-is-falling scenarios as a way to expand government and “solve the problem” they manufactured. How convenient for Gore to use alarmist propaganda, falsified charts and a hoax to create a problem. Gore and other leftists invented most of the manmade global warming “crisis,” empowering leftists all over the world to expand government’s reach and blame “greedy” corporations so they can be taxed to pay the global warming tab and so that all the liberals can “take care” of all the helpless corporate victims before life on Earth is destroyed.

Gore is not just wrong; he’s dangerous. His views are perilous because, as he engages in profiteering, he influences the U.S. government to take radical actions that severely impact America’s economy and the lives of millions of its citizens. Gore is a very clever man as he rakes in the money, but he has put himself into one hell of an ethical conflict of interest.

RELATED:  Al Gore Leaves People's Climate March in Chevy Suburban SUV

Uber Rich Man Leonardo DiCaprio With Yachts and Planes Lectures World About Global Warming

Townhall.com:

Actor Leonardo DiCaprio is a very rich man. His net worth sits at $220 million, which naturally means he owns many expensive things that require a lot of oil to enjoy. For example, here he is on his yacht.

Over the weekend, a march to stop climate change was held in New York City. DiCaprio took the time to leave his multi-million dollar Manhattan apartment and walked in solidarity with the crowd full of hipsters wearing their petroleum based shoes. He took selfies with marchers on their earth destroying iPhones. 

Luckily, the United Nations held a Climate Change Summit this week and DiCaprio was given a speaking slot. He is also a newly minted UN "messenger of peace." DiCaprio took advantage of the opportunity by lecturing the rest of the world about how to use less energy (through government force of course because changing individual, personal choices when it comes to energy consumption is just too hard apparently). 

When he was finished at the podium, there's no doubt DiCaprio left the stage to get into an SUV, which of course took him back to his private jet so he could start his next yachting vacation. 

"As an actor I pretend for a living. I play fictitious characters often solving fictitious problems," DiCaprio said in a suit that cost thousands of dollars. "I stand before you not as an expert, but as a concerned citizen, one of the 400,000 people who marched in the streets of New York on Sunday and the billions of others around the world who want to solve our climate crisis." 

Yes, DiCaprio is a concerned citizen just like the rest of us... 

"To be clear, this is not about just telling people to change their light bulbs or to buy a hybrid car, this disaster has grown beyond the choices that individuals make. This is now about our industries and our governments around the world taking decisive and large scale action," he continued. "This isn't hysteria. This is fact." 

As always with these people, less energy for thee but not for me. If DiCaprio wants really change, he should start with himself and lead by example. That isn't hysteria, it's a fact. 

RELATED:  Critics Slam Climate Change Protesters for Leaving Trash at NYC March

Media Apathetic on Abuse Charges Against Soccer Star Hope Solo

Mediaite.com:

For those who know Peterson and Rice, the follow-up question is as follows: 

“Who is Hope Solo?” 

After getting a few lame jokes that she’s the daughter of Harrison Ford‘s Han Solo in the upcoming Star Wars reboot, perhaps four in ten will have a general idea of her existence (that was the number arrived at in my private survey). For those who don’t, Ms. Solo is the starting goalie for the U.S. national soccer team and has amazingly held this position since Bill Clinton was president (2000). Along the way, she’s won two gold medals and has recorded the most shutouts in U.S. women’s soccer history. She can add some distance to that record when the U.S. hosts Mexico in Rochester tonight. 

Solo is also a 33-year-old woman charged with two counts of misdemeanor domestic violence in the assault of her sister and teenage nephew. The Washington native has pleaded not guilty. Her trial is set to begin in two months. But unlike Rice and Peterson–who both absolutely deserve to be nowhere near a football field right now–Solo continues to play. 

Here’s the way USA Today described the moment she broke the U.S. women’s shutout record on September 13 in Sandy, Utah:

In the waning moments of the U.S. women’s rout of Mexico, the crowd behind Hope Solo’s goal began chanting her name. They knew she was on the verge of making history. With the 8-0 U.S. victory, Solo, playing while facing domestic violence charges in Washington, collected her record 72nd shutout with the national team.

“The best part about it is the best is yet to come,” she told cheering fans when the milestone was announced at Rio Tinto Stadium on Saturday night.

So while the star goalkeeper plays again tonight under the media radar, cable news and ESPN continue their soapbox sermons on the evil NFL, where if you weren’t paying attention, would conclude is the only organization in the country to employ characters like Peterson or Rice. The fact is that domestic and child abuse are epidemics in this country. If it takes two major athletes from America’s most popular sport to bring more attention to it, that’s only a good thing. But to pretend domestic and child abuse is a one-way street in terms of gender is another example of media twisting a narrative to satisfy the ends to the means. 

Is Solo guilty? Only three people–the ones directly involved–know that. But what if Solo played not for the U.S. women’s soccer team, but the National Football League as, say… a kicker (think of Kathy Ireland as a college kicker in the 1991 flick Necessary Roughness). Does she really get a free pass via being ignored? 

Does U.S. Soccer President Sunil Gulati avoid calls for his termination by almost every pundit in the country? Here’s what he had to say when a reporter–one of very few–actually asked a question about his decision to allow Solo to play recently: 

“We looked at all the facts that we had in front of us, we talked to Hope, and are going to wait until the legal proceedings come to a conclusion before we take any action, if it’s needed.” 

Adrian Peterson also has legal proceedings upcoming. No conclusion has been made in a court of law (the court of public opinion proving more powerful in the meantime).

RELATED: MSNBC Panel Erupts When Roland Martin Asks: Double Standard on Female Abuse Charges?

White Liberal Hero Laverne Cox Campaigns To Transfer Transsexual Child Killer To Women's Prison

When racist, liberal mainstream magazines like People gush on how "pretty" male drag queen Laverne Cox is, remember this act of blatant ignorance:

LSA and black twitter's favorite mutilated dude in a dress, has launched a campaign for child rapist and killer, "Synthia" China Blast, aka Luis Morales.
Luis Morales, the transperson Laverne Cox wants us to have sympathy for and to be transferred to a woman's facility, is incarcerated for the rape, murder, and abuse of the corpse of a 13 year old black girl named Ebony Williams.

Quote:

Out of all the causes in the entire world that could have been championed, the OITNB star Laverne Cox asks that you lend your support to a deranged, sadistic, life-extinguishing person who raped and murdered little Ebony Nicole Williams, then dumped her lifeless body off a highway underpass, later returning to burn her corpse. Cox is joined in this action by the Sylvia Rivera Law Project, a transgender organization that supports incarcerated males who are serving sentences for the rape, murder, and sexual exploitation of children. The organization encourages transgender youth to write to these men, including pedophile Lewis Stevens who represents the Sylvia Rivera Law Project as “Lennea Elizabeth Stevens” in a blog on their website. Stevens is incarcerated for possessing a collection of videos of children being raped. See a partial list of his collection here:

http://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2...iams/#comments
You can click on the link and read the descriptions of the sick child pornography. I won't post them here. But there is a strong idea in the trans movement that child sex abuse is not wrong. That it's no big deal. Even Janet Mock said his being a child prostitute helped him "feel like a girl". Y'all better wake up.
All this to say, this is the MAINSTREAM trans movment, people. Laverne Cox and The Sylvia Rivera Law Project are MAINSTREAM. Janet Mock "child prostitution is empowering" is MAINSTREAM. When you support this phony movement, this is what you are supporting. These people are sick. Does no one care for young Ebony Williams and what this man did to her? She was brutally raped and murdered and then set on fire, but Laverne think poor Luis is a victim cause they won't let him in the women's prison?!! So it's transphobic to not want this violent child killer in a prison with women?
You people better wake up. They don't care about women, they don't care about children. The trans movement is a "men's rights" movement. They are sick and they condone violence against women and children. Their precious man feelings come before our safety.

RELATED:  Cuomo Calls To Outlaw Transgender Discrimination

Charles Krauthammer: Obama's Criticism of House Immigration Bill 'Ridiculous'

FOXNews.com:

Charles Krauthammer said Friday on "Special Report with Bret Baier" that President Obama's criticism of the House over its failure to pass an immigration bill was "ridiculous," as he was mocking Republican lawmakers for something Democrats are also guilty of. 

Krauthammer, a syndicated columnist and Fox News contributor, said that if Obama is going to criticize the House for passing a border crisis bill they know the president will veto, he also has to criticize Senate Democrats when they pass legislation the House won't accept. 

"Is that a criterion that would determine what a House or Senate is going to do, whether the other guys are going to accept it? It's ridiculous," he said. 

Krauthammer suggested that the best course for both the Senate and the House would be to pursue a combination of amnesty and enforcement.

"Of the 11 million, ultimately, I would say, we're going to have to give them residence here, in a generous rate.  We're not going to deport them," he said. "But I think we're going to have to promise the American people...this is the last 11 million. I guarantee you that if Americans believed that there will be enforcement, and this is the last cohort of illegals to be legalized, you would get 80 percent support for that duel approach."

RELATED:  House passes two Republican measures in response to surge of child migrants

Actor Gary Oldman Goes Off on PC ‘Crap,’ Liberal Double Standards in Hollywood

When conservative actors (who rarely have the guts to "come out" for fear of being blacklisted by the Gay Mafia that runs Hollyweird) speak openly it's funny how a resident liberal journalist will refer their words as "rants":

Actor Gary Oldman is more conservative, politically speaking, than most other people in Hollywood, and in a new interview with Playboy, he goes off on the political correctness that torpedoed both Mel Gibson and Alec Baldwin‘s careers, as well as the liberal double standard in Hollywood over who gets to make jokes about whom.

When asked to weigh in on what Gibson’s dealt with over the years, Oldman said, “I just think political correctness is crap. That’s what I think about it. I think it’s like, take a fucking joke. Get over it.” He said so many “fucking hypocrites” condemned Gibson, but they privately use words like he did.

Oldman also didn’t begrudge Alec Baldwin for using the word “fag” against a paparazzo after his family had been harassed by people with cameras. But because of that one word, he said, Baldwin’s been made into “an outcast, a leper.”

Oldman also went on a bit of a rant about how certain people in Hollywood are allowed to get away with politically incorrect jokes but people like him really can’t:

“Well, if I called Nancy Pelosi a cunt—and I’ll go one better, a fucking useless cunt—I can’t really say that. But Bill Maher and Jon Stewart can, and nobody’s going to stop them from working because of it. Bill Maher could call someone a fag and get away with it. He said to Seth MacFarlane this year, ‘I thought you were going to do the Oscars again. Instead they got a lesbian.’ He can say something like that. Is that more or less offensive than Alec Baldwin saying to someone in the street, ‘You fag’? I don’t get it.”

He also found it ridiculous that the culture in Hollywood last Oscar season was “if you didn’t vote for 12 Years a Slave you were a racist.”

RELATED:  James Woods blasts ‘Obama’s IRS thugs,’ NY Times lapdogs, presidential crickets

Liberal Media Now Officially Referring To Ex-Army Traitor Bradley Manning As "Chelsea"

Despite the heinous crimes he committed and thus, all the lives he put in danger by salaciously releasing classified information to an anti-secrecy group, the liberal media bows down this criminal's request to now be referred to as "Chelsea" because he chooses to dress like a woman (i.e. "transgender rights"). Control the words and you control the debate:

Chelsea Manning, currently serving a thirty-five year sentence for leaking a heap of classified military materials to Wikileaks, penned an op-ed for the New York Times Sunday morning in which she called for greater press access to U.S. military operations, arguing that more transparency would produce a better informed populace and restore confidence in political and military officials. 

“I believe that the current limits on press freedom and excessive government secrecy make it impossible for Americans to grasp fully what is happening in the wars we finance,” she wrote.

Manning, a former intelligence analyst, said she saw in Iraq the wide gulf in the understanding of U.S. military operations enjoyed by intelligence analysts versus that attainable by the public or even lawmakers, both of whom made poor decisions based on incomplete information:

“The more I made these daily comparisons between the news back in the States and the military and diplomatic reports available to me as an analyst, the more aware I became of the disparity. In contrast to the solid, nuanced briefings we created on the ground, the news available to the public was flooded with foggy speculation and simplifications.”

Manning especially critiqued the embedded reporter procedures, which she said all but demanded favorable coverage from the few members of the press who achieved access to it in the first place — not, Manning argued, a coincidence:

“The embedded reporter program, which continues in Afghanistan and wherever the United States sends troops, is deeply informed by the military’s experience of how media coverage shifted public opinion during the Vietnam War. The gatekeepers in public affairs have too much power: Reporters naturally fear having their access terminated, so they tend to avoid controversial reporting that could raise red flags.”

RELATED: VA Fast-Tracks Sex Change for Manning While Vets Die on Waiting Lists

Al Michaels: Washington Redskins Name Change Talk Is 'Nuts'

Finally, a sports journalist refusing to bow down to the politically-correct geniuses/hypocrites on the Left. And why doesn't hardly anyone mention that all those 50 senators calling for the Redskins to change their name just happen to be Democrats?:

Longtime play-by-play announcer Al Michaels called the heated debate over the Washington Redskins' team name "nuts," and feels team owner Dan Snyder isn't likely to bow to public pressure.
"It seems to me as if he is going to hold on," Michaels told the "Jim Rome on Showtime" program this week, according to The Washington Post.
"I mean all of a sudden — I mean, for 70-some-odd years this was a zero issue, and then it became an issue. I understand we live in this politically correct environment. It's crazier than ever; you know, senators want to weigh in on this, like there's nothing better to do in Congress. This becomes a big issue. I mean, I just think it's nuts. And I do know, I've talked to Snyder about it — not recently but when we were in Washington last year — and he basically said 'over my dead body.'"
The push to change the Redskins' name has raged for some time. Last month, 50 United States senators sent a letter to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell asking him to act and argued that the name was a racist slur to Native Americans.
Team President Bruce Allen responded to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid a few days later.

"Our use of 'Redskins' as the name of our football team for more than 80 years has always been respectful of and shown reverence toward the proud legacy and traditions of Native Americans," Allen wrote in a letter that was released by the team.
Allen's response cites research that "Redskins originated as a Native American expression of solidarity," and explained that the logo was designed by Native American leaders.

RELATED: Beck Tears Into ‘Sanctimonious Piece of Crap’ Bob Costas for Redskins Commentary

Hillary Clinton's Gay-Marriage Problem

TheAtlantic.com:

Hillary Clinton didn't refrain from supporting same-sex marriage for political reasons—before last year, she earnestly believed that marriage equality should be denied to gays and lesbians. That's the story the 66-year-old Democrat settled on when NPR host Terry Gross pressed her on her views. The admission is easily the most significant in the interview with the former senator, secretary of State, and presidential candidate, though much of the subsequent media attention has focused on the perception that there was a "heated exchange" where Clinton "lashed out" at her interviewer.* The mild tension stemmed from persistent questioning as Clinton obfuscated on an issue that could damage her chances in a 2016 primary but is relatively unlikely to hurt her in a contest against a Republican, given that her coalition is so much stronger on gay rights than the opposition. 

In a primary, Clinton could be forced to explain a longtime position that a significant part of that Democratic political coalition now views as suspect or even bigoted. Most famously, the Silicon Valley left forced the ouster of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich for a 2008 donation he made to an anti-gay-marriage ballot initiative. That same year, Clinton ran for president while openly opposing gay marriage. If she is to be believed, she also opposed gay marriage as recently as 2013, long after a majority of Americans already held a more gay-friendly position. Would the subset of Democrats who thought 2008 opposition to gay marriage should prevent a man from becoming CEO in 2013 really support the 2015 presidential campaign of a woman who openly opposed gay marriage until last year?

Doing so would seem to show inconsistency, yet there's a strong argument to be made that Clinton's anti-gay-marriage past shouldn't drive decisions to support or oppose her. No one doubts she will be a strong supporter of gay equality if elected president, now that all the political incentives to take that position are aligned. She has advanced gay rights other than marriage at times in her long career. And she has never come across in speeches or interviews as an anti-gay bigot. There is, however, a vocal segment of the left that is invested in likening people who opposed gay marriage to racists who opposed interracial marriage. There is also resentment from gays who feel that the Clintons wronged them in the past.

Andrew Sullivan's perspective is instructive:
She was the second most powerful person in an administration in a critical era for gay rights. And in that era, her husband signed the HIV travel ban into law (it remained on the books for 22 years thereafter), making it the only medical condition ever legislated as a bar to even a tourist entering the US. Clinton also left gay service-members in the lurch, doubling the rate of their discharges from the military, and signed DOMA, the high watermark of anti-gay legislation in American history. Where and when it counted, the Clintons gave critical credibility to the religious right’s jihad against us. And on the day we testified against DOMA in 1996, their Justice Department argued that there were no constitutional problems with DOMA at all (the Supreme Court eventually disagreed).

What I’d like to hear her answer is whether she regrets that period and whether she will ever take responsibility for it. But she got pissed when merely asked how calculated her position on this was. Here’s my guess: Unlike Obama, she was personally deeply uncomfortable with this for a long time and politically believed the issue was a Republican wedge issue to torment the Clintons rather than a core civil rights cause. I was editor of TNR for five years of the Clintons, aggressively writing and publishing articles in favor of marriage equality and military service, and saw the Clintons’ irritation with and hostility to gay activists up close. Under my editorship, we were a very early 1991 backer of Clinton – so I sure didn’t start out prejudiced against them. They taught me that skepticism all by themselves, and mainly by lying all the time.

RELATED:  Hillary Clinton Snaps at NPR Host for Questions About Gay Marriage Evolution

SunTrust Banks Fights Back Against Liberal Terrorism and Reverses Decision On Conservative Benham Brothers

A rare victory for Christian conservatives living in Barack Obama's Godless America:

After an uproar from conservative customers, SunTrust Banks announced Friday afternoon that the decision to end its relationship with real estate entrepreneurs David and Jason Benham had been reversed.

Earlier Friday, The Daily Caller reported that SunTrust Banks had pulled all of its listed properties with the Benham brothers’ bank-owned property business.

The move came just a week after HGTV announced it was canceling a planned home renovation show hosted by the Benhams because of their conservative views on abortion and gay marriage.

By Friday afternoon, SunTrust released a statement saying the decision had been reversed. The bank didn’t go into detail about why they originally cut ties with the Benham brothers, though SunTrust said the decision was made by a third party vendor. TheDC reported earlier Friday that the vendor had told a Benham Brothers franchisee that the bank itself made the decision.

“We clarified our policies with our vendor and they have reinstated the listings with Benham Real Estate,” SunTrust spokeswoman Beth McKenna said.

“Mid-2013, we consolidated the management of certain residential assets with a third party vendor, which has the relationship with Benham Real Estate,” McKenna added. “While we do not publicly comment on specific vendor relationships, we don’t make choices on suppliers nor base business decisions on political factors, nor do we direct our third party vendors to do so.”

Added McKenna: “SunTrust supports the rights of all Americans to fully exercise their freedoms granted under the Constitution, including those with respect to free speech and freedom of religion.”

After publication of TheDC’s story earlier Friday, conservatives expressed outrage at the bank.

 “SunTrust Banks appears to have punished David and Jason Benham by taking action against their business purely based on their Christian beliefs,” said Chris Stone, the founder of Faith Driven Consumer. “This sends a loud and clear message to people of faith in America, you’re not welcome at SunTrust, take your business somewhere else.”

RELATED: Benham Brothers Can Bank on SunTrust After All