A day of reckoning is long overdue for Feminists, Democrats & Hollywood and their complicity and coverups of decades of sexual abuse of both women and men. Harvey Weinstein along with many other sexual assaulters in Hollywood and within the Democratic Party would not have gone unchecked if they had denounced Bill Clinton and his sexual depravity long ago. Instead feminists and democrats, embraced their sexual predators, lauding them for decades all while knowing their dirty secrets. Hollywood ignored predators like Weinstein because like Clinton, he served a means to an end.

Leading so-called feminists like Gloria Steinem defended Bill Clinton and others allowed Hillary a pass to attack and discredit the many women who accused him. Democrats, Feminists & Hollywood have allowed women like Lena Dunham a platform and a voice even after she admitted she sexually assaulted her 7yr old sister.

Caption Courtesy of TRUTH REVOLT 2014

Democrats, Feminists & Hollywood have allowed Hillary Clinton a pass to get in bed with David Brock, a racist, gay and rich white man who literally destroyed Anita Hill with salacious lies to defend Clarence Thomas. “A little bit nutty and a little bit slutty”~David Brock. Then there’s Joe Biden, a man with his own issues of sexual assaults and misconduct and his complicity in silencing Anita Hill and ensuring Clarence Thomas a seat on the US Supreme Court.

The below article was taken from the INDEPENDENT and written by: How Bill Clinton Neutered the Feminist Movement by Marjorie Williams in 1998.

Feminists have, all along, muffled, disguised, excused and denied the worst aspects of the President’s behaviour with women — especially in their reactions to Paula Jones, whose sexual-harassment suit they have greeted with attitudes ranging from tepid boilerplate support to outright hostility. The chief reason for feminists’ continued support of Clinton is clear: Clinton is their guy. Clarence Thomas was their enemy. Bob Packwood, a liberal Republican who was the next recognised boor to walk up to the plank, was a harder case for feminists, but in the end they tied the blindfold. Clinton, though, is the hardest case, because he is the most reliably supportive President they have ever had. But if political opportunism is the main cause of their current blindness, it’s not the only one. You can find in their reasoning a road map to everything that ails liberal feminism today: political self-dealing, class bias, and dedication to a bleak vision of sexual “liberation” that has deprived them of what was once the moral force of their beliefs. So, it seems appropriate to say here that I am a feminist and a registered Democrat. Many of the feminist activists in Washington are women I’ve known for years as sources; I feel an open sympathy for much of the work they do. Yet, I also feel something close to fury over their failure to call Clinton to account for his actions. My anger may be bred, in part, by my own past willingness to “put in perspective” Clinton’s questionable behaviour with women — enough, at least, to vote for him twice. There is a shift in elite opinion about both Clinton and sexual mores. Exhibit A was a bizarre 30 January gathering hosted by the New York Observer at the restaurant Le Bernardin, where 10 Manhattan “supergals” — including writers Katie Roiphe, Erica Jong, Nancy Friday and Francine Prose, designer Nicole Miller, former Saturday Night Live contributor Patricia Marx, and “retired dominatrix and writer” Susan Shellogg — were invited to drink wine and analyse the scandal. The resulting exchange, published by in the New York Observer’s 9 February issue, was galactically strange. The women agreed that they liked Clinton better for having had a titillating affair; after all, he’s kind of a hunk. Jong, for one, wants a president who is “alive from the waist down,” and Marx declared him “cute and getting cuter all the time.” They pronounced Starr (in Friday’s words) “a big sissy”, and speculated about whether Lewinsky had swallowed the President’s semen. “Oh,” squealed Jong, “imagine swallowing the Presidential come.” It was the most embarrassing thing I had read in a long time. But then I opened the next week’s New Yorker, which contained a swooning “Fax from Washington” written by Tina Brown herself, describing the 5 February White House dinner for British Prime Minister Tony Blair. The subtext was that the Clinton scandal had marvellously improved the President’s aura: it made him deem so … hot “Now see your President, tall and absurdly debonair, as he dances with a radiant blonde, his wife… Amid the cliches about his charm, his glamour is undersung… Forget the dog-in-the-manger, down-in- the-mouth neo-puritanism of the op-ed tumbrel drivers, and see him instead as his guests do: a man in a dinner jacket with more heat than any star in the room.”

The above single paragraph was from Tina Brown the same woman who has written multiple articles and gladly obliged interviews trashing Harvey Weinstein over the last few days now that it’s politically expedient, yet a simple google search shows decades of pictures with Tina and Weinstein enjoying lavish parties and events.

Decades of Tina Brown with Harvey Weinstein

It’s amazing now that TIME magazine, Daily Mail & Hollywood Reporter have allowed Tina Brown a pass to attack Harvey Weinstein and claim some moral high ground after salivating over Bill Clinton’s many sexual assaults because she, liberal feminists and her corporate owners controlled the narrative during that era. Tina Brown’s perverted view of Bill Clinton’s sexual assaults and elevating him as some God-like figure was disgusting and she should not be allowed pass to now pretend disgust with Weinstein, something I’m sure she along with many others knew intimately about.

The Below is more from the INDEPENDENT with Majorie Williams in 1998.

In easing past the contradictions of the feminist class system, Hillary Clinton is the crucial figure. It’s common knowledge that she has been her husband’s most important protector. “The fact that Hillary doesn’t seem bothered by it gives women an excuse, in a way, to be tolerant of his behaviour,” says Radcliffe Public Policy Institute fellow Wendy Kaminer. But less appreciated is a second, more subtle way in which Hillary has shielded her husband. She is, in effect, his feminist beard: the symbolic guarantor of his political bona fides. He may hit on women like Gennifer Flowers and Paula Jones, her presence says, but when it comes to sharing a home (and a presidency) he chose a woman like me. Again and again, feminists cite the Hillary factor as mitigating evidence. Gloria Steinem told me: “He’s married to a woman who’s at least his equal, whom he clearly likes and respects.”

CIRCA 1998: The President’s sordid affairs have drawn barely a murmur from America’s powerful sisterhood. In an exclusive extract from the forthcoming issue of `Vanity Fair’, Marjorie Williams reveals some ugly truths