Hollywood’s Beloved ‘Gender Rights’ Nonprofit Time’s Up Closes After Years Of Siding With Alleged Democrat Abusers

Hollywood’s Beloved ‘Gender Rights’ Nonprofit Time’s Up Closes After Years Of Siding With Alleged Democrat Abusers

After a dramatic launch at the 2018 Golden Globes in the wake of the Harvey Weinstein scandal, the so-called “gender rights” organization Time’s Up raked in over $22 million from many of Hollywood’s most prominent names such as Oprah Winfrey, Meryl Streep, Shonda Rhimes, and Reese Witherspoon. Just five years later, Time’s Up is now officially closing its doors after the group was revealed to be nothing more than another partisan operation that opted to protect Democrats from the very type of sexual assault and workplace inequality allegations they claimed to be fighting against. Unsurprisingly, the celebrities who enthusiastically backed the legal fund are radio silent.

“Time’s Up will formally cease its operations by the end of January and direct its remaining $1.7 million in funds to the Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund (TULDF),” The Hollywood Reporter reported this week.

Time’s Up first revealed its partisan bias during Joe Biden’s presidential campaign when former Senate staffer Tara Reade came forward accusing a married Sen. Biden of pushing her against a wall, kissing her, and forcibly penetrating her with his fingers under her skirt in 1993. Although the organization claimed Reade’s allegations should not “go ignored,” it was later discovered that its own public relations firm, SKDKnickerbocker, was headed by Anita Dunn, a top Biden campaign strategist.

Dunn was also reported to have previously given Weinstein “damage control advice.” The irony — that Time’s Up was created in response to the Weinstein allegations as an effort to stop and prosecute other predators — is lost on no one.

“I actually cried a little because I felt really betrayed,” Reade told Law & Crime at the time. “They never told me that their public relations was run by Anita Dunn. I found out in real-time reading Ryan [Grim]’s article.”

“From my perspective: the payments look like a way to silence me further from getting my story heard,” Reade said of the conflicting interests between SKDKnickerbocker and Biden’s campaign.

It wasn’t that they were staying out of politics. Time’s Up was of course proud to take bold stands against politicians such as Donald Trump and figures like Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, over whom it organized a “national walk-out” based on the thinnest of allegations.

But Time’s Up’s silence on Biden and other Democrats such as Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax would be small potatoes compared to revelations found in New York Attorney General Letitia James’ 2021 report that Time’s Up chief, Tina Tchen, and TULDF co-founder Roberta Kaplan were asked by former Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s office for guidance on how to respond to sexual harassment allegations brought by a former Cuomo aide, Lindsey Boylan.

Kaplan resigned from the Time’s Up board after the AG’s investigation found that Kaplan gave input on a letter Cuomo’s office drafted to rebut Boylan’s allegations.

“[Cuomo aide Melissa] DeRosa reported back to the Governor that Ms. Kaplan and the head of Time’s Up thought the letter was okay with some changes, as did [Cuomo ally Steven] Cohen, but everyone else thought it was a bad idea,” the AG’s report reads.

Less than a month after the AG’s report came out in the fall of 2021, Time’s Up’s A-list advisory board quietly dissolved. Celebrity names on the 71-member board included Witherspoon, Jessica Chastain, Natalie Portman, Janelle Monae, Brie Larson, Tessa Thompson, Padma Lakshmi, Laura Dern, America Ferrera, Kerry Washington, Tarana Burke, Alyssa Milano, Gretchen Carlson, Amy Schumer, and Julianne Moore.

According to Variety, Time’s Up co-founder Nina Shaw wrote an email to the members instructing them, “There is no need for your individual resignations, as the group no longer exists.” Further, she explained that “The goal behind a quick dissolution of the GLB [Global Leadership Board] was to shield all of you from unfair scrutiny.”

In other words, no need for the public handwringing and apologies that would normally be necessary had the accused not belonged to the Democratic Party. You may go quietly into the night.

Time’s Up’s disgusting partisan leanings ultimately disparaged and put an end to their own cause. They got what they deserved, but what about Hollywood’s most vocal and prominent #MeToo defenders and fundraisers? Will there be any repercussions or mea culpas about how their money went to support alleged predators like Cuomo? No, of course not.


Source

Pedophiles Rule the World with their Secret Religion

Pedophiles Rule the World with their Secret Religion

HealthImpactNews Published October 24, 2021

Rumble — Who are the Globalists ruling the world today and trafficking children, and what is their Secret Religion?

Article: https://healthimpactnews.com/2021/the-united-states-of-america-home-to-pedophiles-and-worlds-1-destination-for-child-trafficking/

SourceSouth Australian Gov Criminal Organisation

“Shrink the World’s Population”: Secret 2009 Meeting of Billionaires “Good Club”

“Shrink the World’s Population”: Secret 2009 Meeting of Billionaires “Good Club”

“Shrink the World’s Population”: Secret 2009 Meeting of Billionaires “Good Club”

By: Prof Michel Chossudovsky

For more than ten years, meetings have been held by billionaires described as philanthropists to Reduce World Population culminating with the 2020-2021 Covid crisis.

Recent developments suggest that “Depopulation” is an integral part of the so-called Covid mandates including the lockdown policies and the mRNA “vaccine”.

Flash back to 2009. According to the Wall Street Journal: “Billionaires Try to Shrink World’s Population”.

In May 2009, the Billionaire philanthropists met behind closed doors at the home of the president of The Rockefeller University in Manhattan.

This Secret Gathering was sponsored by Bill Gates. They called themselves “The Good Club”.

Among the participants were the late David Rockefeller, Warren Buffett, George Soros, Michael Bloomberg Ted Turner, Oprah Winfrey and many more.

In May 2009, the WSJ as well as the Sunday Times reported: (John Harlow, Los Angeles) that

Some of America’s leading billionaires have met secretly to consider how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world’s population and speed up improvements in health and education.”

The emphasis was not on population growth (i.e Planned Parenthood) but on “Depopulation”, i.e,. the reduction in the absolute size of World population.

To read complete WSJ article click here.

According to the Sunday Times report :

The philanthropists who attended a summit convened on the initiative of Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder, discussed joining forces to overcome political and religious obstacles to change.

Stacy Palmer, editor of the Chronicle of Philanthropy, said the summit was unprecedented. “We only learnt about it afterwards, by accident. Normally these people are happy to talk good causes, but this is different – maybe because they don’t want to be seen as a global cabal,” he said.

Another guest said there was “nothing as crude as a vote” but a consensus emerged that they would back a strategy in which population growth would be tackled as a potentially disastrous environmental, social and industrial threat.

This is something so nightmarish that everyone in this group agreed it needs big-brain answers,” said the guest.

Why all the secrecy? “They wanted to speak rich to rich without worrying anything they said would end up in the newspapers, painting them as an alternative world government,” he said.(Sunday Times)

Shrinking The World’s Population

The media reports on the May 5, 2009 secret gathering focused on the commitment of “The Good Club” to “slowing down” the growth of the World’s population.

Shrink the World Population” (the WSJ Title) goes beyond Planned Parenthood which consists in “Reducing the Growth of World Population”. It consists in “Depopulation”, namely reducing the absolute size of World Population, which ultimately requires reducing the rate of birth (which would include reduced fertility) coupled with a significant increase in the death rate.

Secret Meeting: At the Height of the H1N1 Pandemic

On April 22, 2009, the CDC activated it’s Emergency Operations Center (EOC). On April 25, 2009, the World Health Organization (WHO) headed by Margaret Chan declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). And a couple of weeks later, the “Good Club” meet in NYC at the height of the H1N1 swine flu pandemic which turned out to be a scam.

It is also worth noting that at very outset of the H1N1 crisis in April 2009, Professor Neil Ferguson of Imperial College, London was advising Bill Gates and the WHO: “40 per cent of people in the UK could be infected [with H1N1] within the next six months if the country was hit by a pandemic.”

Sounds familiar? That was the same Neil Ferguson (generously supported by the Gates Foundation) who designed the coronavirus Lockdown Model (launched on March 11, 2020). As we recall, that March 2020 mathematical model was based on “predictions” of 600,000 deaths.

And now (Summer- Autumn 2021) a third authoritative “mathematical model” by the same “scientist” (Ferguson) was formulated to justify a “Fourth Wave Lockdown”.

Depopulation

Was an absolute “reduction” in World population contemplated at that May 2009 secret meeting?

A few months later, Bill Gates in his TED presentation (February 2010) pertaining to vaccination, confirmed the following;

And if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that [the world population] by 10 or 15 percent”.

According to Gates’ statement, this would represent an absolute reduction of the World’s population (2010) of the order 680 million to 1.02 billion.

(See quotation on Video starting at 04.21. See also screenshot of Transcript of quotation)

TED Talk at 04:21:

The Good Club” Then and Now

The same group of billionaires who met at the May 2009 secret venue, have been actively involved from the outset of the Covid crisis in designing the lockdown policies applied Worldwide, the mRNA vaccine and the “Great Reset”.

The mRNA vaccine is not a project of a UN intergovernmental body (WHO) on behalf the member states of the UN: This is a private initiative. The billionaire elites which fund and enforce the Vaccine Project Worldwide are Eugenists committed to Depopulation.

••••

This article (“Shrink the World’s Population”: Secret 2009 Meeting of Billionaires “Good Club”) was originally created and published by Global Research and is republished here with permission and attribution to the articles author Prof Michel Chossudovsky. Copyright © Prof Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2021

More information about the Author and his articles: Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Image Credit: Photo/Graphic in featured image (top) – “Bill Gates at NIH in 2018” by National Institutes of Health (NIH) is marked with CC PDM 1.0

••••

Read more about Bill Gates agenda

••••

Click on image below to visit site:

••••

••••

Stay tuned to …

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Share this…
Share on FacebookPin on PinterestTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn

Source

University Of Oregon Paid ‘1619 Project’ Writer Nikole Hannah-Jones $25K To Lecture On ‘Systemic Racism’

University Of Oregon Paid ‘1619 Project’ Writer Nikole Hannah-Jones $25K To Lecture On ‘Systemic Racism’

The University of Oregon’s School of Journalism and Communication paid New York Times journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones, the writer behind the anti-historical “1619 Project,” for a Zoom lecture in February on “1619 and the Legacy that Built a Nation,” as first reported by Campus Reform.

Hannah-Jones raked in $25,000, evident by a Freedom of Information Request filed by Campus Reform. The Feb. 19 event was co-sponsored by the university’s Office of the President, Office of the Provost, and Division of Equity and Inclusion, among other groups.

The organization that was paid by The University of Oregon was the Lavin Agency, as shown by the FOIA. The agency defines itself as “the world’s largest intellectual talent agency, representing leading thinkers for speaking engagements, personal appearances, consulting, and endorsements.” The group also offers the likes of Margaret Atwood, leftist activist Angela Davis, Khan Academy Chief Executive Officer Salman Khan, climate writer Naomi Klein, and other big names.

The “1619 Project” writer discussed why Americans need to “remain vigilant” while fighting for “racial inequality.” A promotional flyer for the event claimed there is a “lasting legacy of Black enslavement on the nation.”

“As the lead writer for New York Times Magazine’s the “1619 Project,’ a major viral multimedia initiative observing the 400th anniversary of the first African slaves arriving in America, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones explores the lasting legacy of Black enslavement on the nation—specifically, how Black Americans pushed for the democracy we have today,” the flyer read.

Last week, Hulu announced it will stream the “1619 Project,” which Lionsgate studios and Oprah Winfrey partnered to fund this summer. Hulu praised the project by Hannah-Jones in a press release as “a landmark undertaking … of the brutal racism that endures in so many aspects of American life today.” Hannah-Jones won a Pulitzer Prize for her project — which has been debunked by several historians for its pushing of the false premise that America was both founded in 1619 and that the Revolutionary War was fought to sustain slavery.

“[I]t would not surprise me in the slightest if the university is actively attempting to hide its embrace of radicalism,” Oregon Federation of College Republicans Chairman Ben Ehrlich said to Campus Reform.

John Large, a spokesman for the Lane County Republicans where the university is located, told The Federalist that “The University of Oregon is so damned two-faced that if a conservative went to the campus, they would go ahead and throw them guys out.”

According to a document put out by the university, the event was not permitted to be recorded or redistributed.

Source

Queen Hits Back at Meghan Racism Claims! ‘Some Recollections May Vary’

Buckingham Palace broke with normal convention Tuesday to issue a direct riposte to the extraordinary claims made by Meghan in her Oprah interview, expressing sympathy but obliquely questioning her version of events.

In a message published by Buckingham Palace on behalf of Queen Elizabeth II, the head of state of the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia among others, the monarch said Harry and Meghan remained “much loved family members”.

Responding to claims made by Meghan and Harry in their interview with Oprah Winfrey, broadcast overnight Sunday, the Queen said the “issues raised, particularly of race, are concerning”. They would be “addressed” privately, she said, but the monarch made clear that she did not recognise the events as described by Duchess Meghan, noting “some recollections may vary”.

The extraordinary palace communique follows days of speculation and endless headlines generated by Meghan and Prince Harry’s kiss and tell-all television interview with Oprah Winfrey, their first since leaving the senior ‘working’ group of top Royals and relocating to the United States.

During the two-hour tape, Duchess Meghan made serious allegations about the royal family, including the claim that questions had been asked about the skin colour of her unborn child. The duchess also strongly implied — although stopped short out outright saying — that her son had not been made a prince because of prejudice. It has since been widely reported that Archie Mountbatten-Windsor is not a prince of the realm because of a century-old royal protocol that as a great-grandchild of the monarch, he would be a Lord, not a Prince.

Were the Queen to pass away and her son — Prince Charles — take the throne, Archie would then be a grandson, rather than great-grandson, of the monarch and would be entitled to be a British royal prince.

Meghan told Oprah: “In those months when I was pregnant — we have in tandem the conversation of, he won’t be given security, he’s not going to be given a title, and also… concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he’s born”.

Today’s reply to the claims, implying Meghan may have misremembered certain events, are remarkable as the British Royal Family rarely — if ever at all — replies to claims made about it in the press, whether they are true or not. This studied neutrality, which also extends to the Queen not making her views known on matters political, is part of the monarchy’s efforts to remain above the ebb and flow of tabloid opinion.

As Breitbart’s Rebecca Mansour has reported, this behaviour is governed by the unspoken royal rule, Never Complain, Never Explain. She wrote on why a reply was very unlikely, a point which underlines how unusual today’s response is:

They rarely, if ever, respond to news stories at all, even when they are incorrect.

Ironically, this is one of the things Meghan told Oprah she was upset about. She expected the palace to defend her like a celebrity’s PR shop, issuing endless corrections to every negative tabloid story.

But the “firm,” as members of the royal family call the institutional monarchy, doesn’t operate that way. This is nothing new. King Edward VII’s daughter reportedly kept a scrapbook of all the inaccurate newspaper articles written about her family that she titled, “Things We’ve Never Said or Done.” It goes without saying that none of this Edwardian fake news was corrected by the family at the time. The scrapbook was the princess’s way of letting off steam.

…the British royal family doesn’t believe in responding to every bit of bad publicity. To do so would not only be an exercise in futility, it would cheapen them… This is something Meghan doesn’t seem to grasp. But it is this very reticence on the part of the royal family that makes Meghan and Harry’s bombshells so cruel.

This story is developing, more follows.

Source

Meghan Markle’s Dad: Brits Aren’t Racist, Prince Harry ‘Snotty’

Meghan Markle’s Dad: Brits Aren’t Racist, Prince Harry ‘Snotty’

Meghan Markle’s father Thomas told UK television viewers Tuesday he did not think the royal family or the British public were racist before calling Prince Harry “snotty” and pointing to him dressing up as a Nazi.

As Breitbart News reported, Meghan used her Sunday night U.S. television interview with Oprah Winfrey to allege the British royal family expressed concerns about the color of her son’s skin ahead of his birth.

Meghan said when she was first pregnant with son Archie, there were “concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he’s born.” The statement prompted Winfrey to incredulously ask “What?”

“I have great respect for the Royals, and I don’t think the British royal family are racist at all. I don’t think the British are racist, I think Los Angeles is racist, California is a racist, but I don’t think the Brits are,” Thomas Markle told ITV as he sought to challenge the claims of his estranged daughter.

“The thing about what colour will the baby be or how dark will the baby be. I’m guessing and hoping it’s just a dumb question from somebody, you know, it could just be that simple. It could be somebody asked a stupid question. Rather than being a total racist.”

Markle was played clips of the interview, saying: “It really did upset me. It would’ve been easy for her to reach out to me or any of her family. But the other thing is that I would think she could turn to her husband.”

The former lighting director told Piers Morgan on UK breakfast show Good Morning Britain: “The bottom line is: she didn’t lose me,” referencing the claims and counter claims that have dominated their media profiles.

“She made a statement saying she lost me. She didn’t lose me. I’m here for her now if she wants me,” Markle pleaded, revealing the last time he spoke to Meghan and Harry he was lying in a hospital bed and had to tell them he couldn’t come to the wedding.

“The last time we spoke, we didn’t speak, we actually texted each other,” he said.

“At that point we pretty much said goodbye. Actually it wasn’t quite saying goodbye, Harry had said to me at that point, ‘If you had listened to me, this wouldn’t have happened to you.’”

The 76-year-old said he thought that, considering he was lying in a hospital bed, that was “kind of snotty so I hung up on him,” in a response likely to add more fuel to a media fire already burning around the Los Angeles-based couple.

Meghan’s estranged father also apologised for talking to the press about his daughter but added: “We all make mistakes, but I’ve never played naked pool and I’ve never dressed up as Hitler.”

Meghan has been set apart from her father for more than two years after he leaked a private letter where she begged him to stop talking to the press, which ended in a fiery court battle.

The pair haven’t seen each other since before the royal wedding in May 2018 and her father has never met Prince Harry or their son Archie.

Follow Simon Kent on Twitter: or e-mail to: skent@breitbart.com

Source

Serena Williams Says the Pain Is Real: ‘Proud’ of Meghan Markle for Interview

Serena Williams Says the Pain Is Real: ‘Proud’ of Meghan Markle for Interview

Tennis great Serena Williams said Monday she felt the  “pain and cruelty” suffered by Meghan Markle, the wife of Prince Harry, after the former actress used a television interview to accuse Britain’s royal family of racism.

As Breitbart News reported, Markle went public with a host of claims about the royal family in the interview with Oprah Winfrey, alleging concerns were expressed about the color of her son’s skin ahead of his birth.

Meghan said when she was first pregnant with son Archie, there were “concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he’s born.”

She also said she was pushed to the brink of suicide after marrying into royalty in 2018.

Williams, who has won 23 Grand Slam titles, said her “friend” Meghan had taught her “what it means to be truly noble” and said she felt her pain as she lived with “oppression” inside Buckingham Palace.

“I know firsthand the sexism and racism institutions and the media use to vilify women and people of colour to minimise us, to break us down and demonize us,” Williams tweeted as part of a longer statement.

“We must recognise our obligation to decry malicious, unfounded gossip and tabloid journalism.

“The mental health consequences of systemic oppression and victimisation are devastating, isolating, and all too often lethal.”

Meghan and Harry said in the interview their second child, who is due this summer, would be a girl.

“I want Meghan’s daughter, my daughter, and your daughter to live in a society that is driven by respect,” Williams added.

Follow Simon Kent on Twitter: or e-mail to: skent@breitbart.com

Source

Meghan Angry Royals Didn’t Break 100 Years of Convention to Make Son a Prince Instead of Lord

Meghan Angry Royals Didn’t Break 100 Years of Convention to Make Son a Prince Instead of Lord

Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, has revealed her rift with the British Royal Family stems in part from her frustration that they would not bend royal rules to make her son a prince against normal convention, claiming inaccurately that the title was his “birthright”.

Conventions laid down over a century ago by the Queen’s grandfather, George V, stipulate that as a great-grandchild of the monarch and child of the second son of the heir to the throne, Archie has a right to father Prince Harry’s subsidiary title, which would make him Lord Archie, Earl of Dumbarton.

In a tell-all interview with American talk show host Oprah Winfrey, however, former Suits starlet Meghan Markle strongly indicated that she did not think this prestigious title — which she and Prince Harry have declined to use — was good enough for her son.

“How did they explain to you that your son, the great-grandson of the Queen, wasn’t going to be a prince? You certainly must have had some conversations with Harry about it, and have your own suspicions as to why they didn’t want to make Archie a prince. Why do you think that is?” asked Winfrey — as if the question could not be answered clearly and easily with reference to the long-established rules mentioned above.

“They were saying they didn’t want him to be a prince or princess, which would be different from protocol,” Meghan said, apparently in error.

“This went on for the last few months of our pregnancy where I was going, hold on for a second,” she continued, alleging that this happened “in tandem [with] concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he’s born.”

Winfrey was quick to play up the racial element of the manufactured controversy, asking: “Do you think it’s because of his race? I know that’s a loaded question.”

Meghan did not make such an accusation outright, but leaned into the theme, saying she was upset by the “idea of the first member of colour in this family not being titled in the same way that other grandchildren would be” and insisting “It’s not their right to take it away.”

In reality, Archie — who is the Queen’s great-grandchild — is not in a unique position. The children of the Queen’s daughter Princess Anne and her first husband Captain Mark Phillips — a commoner who unlike Meghan declined a title on marrying into royalty — do not have titles, and nor does the son of the Queen’s granddaughter Princess Eugenie.

The son and daughter of the Queen’s youngest child, Prince Edward, are not styled as Prince and Princess, but as Lord and Lady — similar to the title the more distantly-related Archie could use, if Meghan and Harry wished.

Meghan tried to link the issue of Archie’s title to the decision that he would not be entitled to taxpayer-funded security — something the royals have tried to curb over the years for minor royals, given the years of austerity many ordinary people have endured — but the connection is dubious.

The aforementioned Princess Eugenie and sister Princess Beatrice, for example, do not receive taxpayer-funded security, regardless of their titles.

Archie is the seventh in line to the throne, behind grandfather Prince Charles, uncle Prince William, his three cousins, and Prince Harry, and will fall further down the line of succession behind any more children his uncle or his cousins have — making it extremely unlikely he will ever wear the crown.

Follow Jack Montgomery on Twitter: @JackBMontgomery
Follow Breitbart London on Facebook: Breitbart London

Source

error

Please help truthPeep spread the word :)