Tag Archives: Scarlett Johansson

Entertainers and professors who pimp for Obama

The following is by no means an exhaustive list.

For other pro-Obama “celebrities,” go to FOTM’s “Leftwing Pathology” page and look for the post links colored brown!

Entertainers who pimp for Obama:

1. Singer Bruce Springsteen ($200 million net worth), who vowed earlier this year not to actively campaign for Obama, reversed course and performed for Captain Hope and Change in Ohio. See DCG’s post, HERE.

2. Actor Jack Black ($40 million net worth) is calling Mitt Romney a “master flip-flopper”while ignoring Obama’s litany of flips and flops. This is the same Jack Black who, at the MTV 2009 Video Music Awards, prayed to the “Dear Dark Lord Satan” to “grant tonight’s nominees with continued success in the music industry” (see pic below).

3. Rapper Jay-Z ($475 million net worth), who admitted he backs Obama because he’s black, cut a campaign video saying Obama inspired people to take a stand in politics (whatever that means).

4. Actresses Eva Longoria ($35 million net worth), Scarlett Johansson ($35 million net worth) and Kerry Washington ($3 million net worth) spoke at the Democratic National Convention and are on a video roasting the Romney/Ryan ticket for its alleged anti-women stances (translation: anti women’s “right” to kill the unborn).

5. Teen slut Miley Cyrus ($120 million net worth), who gave her actor boyfriend Liam Hemsworth a penis birthday cake (see pic below), formally endorsed Obama yesterday.

6. Actress-singer Barbra Streisand ($340 million net worth), who has performed at fundraisers for Obama, emailed Democrats asking for cash, calling a potential GOP takeover “a disaster for America.” When Romney is elected President, I hope she’ll actually carry out her promise of moving to France this time.

Professors who pimp for Obama:

1. Alan Abramowitz, a political science professor at Emory University who is billed as a “widely known expert on national politics,” contributed $250 to Obama on two separate occasions in 2008. This month, Abramowitz told Bloomberg News that the recent drop in the nation’s unemployment rate is “good news for Obama” and blunts Romney’s political momentum. Many news organizations have published Abramowitz’s analyses, including the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, National Journal and The Hill.

2. Garrison Nelson, a professor at the University of Vermont, donated $250 to Obama earlier this year. Nelson was quoted in June 2011 about Obama’s emphasis on his support for the auto industry bailout: “This is to hit Romney where he lives.” Four years ago, he commented on Obama’s favorable poll numbers in Vermont against then-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.): “It’s the Obama phenomenon. Obama has really taken hold here. We’re caught in the wave of support he’s getting.”

3. Peter Ricchiuti, professor of finance at Tulane University donated $3,000 to Obama in 2012 and $1,000 in 2008. He has also given to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), the Democratic National Committee and Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-La.). In 2011, he told ABC News that Obama’s job creation initiatives were “all good ideas.” Ricchiuti told the Mississippi Daily Journal in January 2009 that fears that the incoming Obama administration would usher in a new socialist state were unfounded. “I think he’s a free-market guy,” Ricchiuti said at the time.

4. Timothy Jost, a professor at Washington and Lee University, has given thousands of dollars to Obama and Democratic campaign committees. Identified in news articles as “an expert on healthcare” and a supporter of Obamacare, Jost is critical of Romney’s plan to repeal Obamacare, telling the Boston Globe last year that it is “unconstitutional.”

5. Robert Axelrod, political science professor at the University of Michigan, donated to Obama in 2008 and 2011. In a 2010 Washington Post article titled, “Obama Steps Up Confrontation,” Axelrod says confrontation with the opposing party is initially necessary in order to ultimately strike a bipartisan deal. The article reported that he is not related to David Axelrod, who is a senior adviser to Obama.

6. David Yellen, dean and professor of law at Loyola University in Chicago, donated to Obama in 2008 and 2011. In 2004, he gave to both Howard Dean and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.). Yellen told The Washington Times in 2010 that the scandal involving former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) was not a significant problem (“not a big deal”) for the White House. Yellen said his donation does not affect his objectivity.

Sources: Breitbart.com and The Hill. I added some links, e.g. net worths, and all the pictures.

~Eowyn

Advertisements

Time to end the Hollywood tax cut and subsidies

On the last night of the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, NC, if you had tuned in to one of the major TV network stations, you might have thought you’d stumbled across a Hollywood awards ceremony. There on the stage were Eva Longoria, Scarlett Johansson and Kerry Washington dressed up and giving speeches during prime time; Tom Hanks narrating a tribute to veterans; Mary J. Blige and the Foo Fighters performing; and James Taylor making folksy jokes against a backdrop of wilderness pictures.

Obama girls (l to r): Washington, Johansson, Longoria

Excepting the Foo Fighters, altogether, the net worths of these celebrities total more than half a billion dollars ($528 million). Eva Longoria’s is estimated to be $35 million; Scarlett Johansson’s is $35 million; Kerry Washington’s is $3 million; Tom Hanks’ is a whopping $350 million; Mary J. Blige’s is $45 million; James Taylor’s is $60 million.

But every one of their speeches emphasized their working-class roots and their solidarity with the poor and downtrodden. As an example, Johansson plaintively declared, “I speak to you not as a representative of young Hollywood, but as a representative of the many millions of young Americans, particularly young women, who depend on public and nonprofit programs to help them survive.”

Since most of the denizens of Hollywood, like the celebrities who pimped for Obama at the DNC, are Democrats and favor the party’s policy of wealth redistribution (listen to Obama declaring he favors redistribution in 1998), it is only fair that Hollywood actually participate in redistributive social justice by paying its “fair share.” I’m sure Hollywood liberals are just sick and tired of being called “limousine liberals” (just another expression for “hypocrites”)!

As a matter of fact, Eva Longoria said at the DNC that she should be paying higher taxes: “The Eva Longoria who worked at Wendy’s flipping burgers — she needed a tax break. But the Eva Longoria who works on movie sets does not.”

Glenn Reynolds writes for The Examiner, Sept. 15, 2012, calling for an end to the 20% tax cut enjoyed by Hollywood since the 1950s:

It’s not just Eva Longoria who doesn’t need a tax break — it’s her entire industry, which has enjoyed favorable tax treatment in all sorts of ways, at both the federal and state levels, for years. And now, with the federal government and the states in parlous financial condition, it’s time for those fat cats to shoulder more of the burden. Why should burger flippers at Wendy’s have to cover the national debt while Hollywood moguls enjoy yachts, swimming pools and private jets?

The last time America was this deep in debt was the end of World War II. One of the ways we paid the debt down was through a 20 percent tax on the gross receipts of movie theaters. (That’s right — gross, not net.) That tax was repealed in the 1950s — I guess we could call that the “Hollywood tax cut,” since we’re still talking about the “Bush tax cut” in 2012. To secure that repeal, Hollywood launched a major PR campaign about how taxes kill jobs and hurt prosperity. We haven’t heard that kind of talk from them since.

[…] Now, we’re facing debt levels similar to those we faced after World War II, and it seems entirely appropriate to respond with similar measures. Of course, technological change means we’d need to update the 20 percent tax to apply not only to movie theaters, but to DVD sales, movie downloads, pay-per-view and the like. That just means more revenue, which should please Eva Longoria.

And that’s just the beginning. To be sure that fat cats are paying their fair share and not getting away with things that Wendy’s workers can’t, it’s time for the Internal Revenue Service to crack down on Hollywood’s shady accounting practices, which let studios make even highly successful films look like money losers. (Just look up “Hollywood accounting” on Wikipedia.) I feel sure that if the IRS took a hard look at studios’ and producers’ books, they could squeeze out a good deal of additional revenue. Wendy’s workers don’t get to engage in that kind of fancy accounting. Why should Hollywood?

Meanwhile, cash-strapped states need to take a second look at their extensive film subsidies. A recent study by the Louisiana Budget Project found that despite costing a billion dollars or so over the last decade, Louisiana’s film subsidy project hadn’t accomplished much for the state. “Unfortunately, the returns to the state on this investment, like many of the movies made here, have been a flop. While the subsidies have helped create film industry jobs that weren’t here before, many of these positions are temporary and have come at a steep cost to taxpayers.”

I suspect the same is true in the many other states that have subsidy programs to encourage Hollywood to film there. The main payoff for these programs — and “payoff” is, I think the right word — is that they let state politicians hobnob with the occasional Hollywood star. Why should they do that with taxpayer money? Wendy’s burger flippers can’t.

The more I think about it, the more I think Eva Longoria is right. She should be paying more in taxes, and so should her entire industry. Perhaps under the next administration, they will.

Examiner Contributor Glenn Harlan Reynolds is a University of Tennessee College of Law professor and founder and editor of Instapundit.com.

~Eowyn

Santorum leads GOP candidates in national poll

Actress Scarlett Johansson thinks Santorum’s sweater vest is “so sad.” But we expect no less from a woman whose only educational achievement is that she had graduated from the Professional Children’s School.  Johansson also displays impeccable judgment in wanting 4 more years of Obama. [snark] The Santorum campaign is doing a jujitsu on Johansson. If you donate $100 or more to his campaign, you’ll get a free official Santorum for President sweater vest. Click here!

+++

Riding a wave of momentum since his surprise wins last Tuesday in the GOP contests in three states — Minnesota, Missouri, and supposed Romney stronghold Colorado, Rick Santorum has taken the lead nationally in the Republican presidential race for the first time.

John Lederman reports for The Hill, Feb. 11, 2012, that according to a national poll released today by Democratic firm Public Policy Polling (PPP), Santorum has a 15-point lead on Mitt Romney.

Santorum leads Mitt Romney 38% to 23% in the new poll, while Gingrich is in third place with 17%, and Ron Paul comes in last with 13%.

This is the first major national poll to show Santorum in the lead. The closest he had come previously was after his surprise win in Iowa the first week of January, but even then, Romney performed 10 points better than Santorum nationally.

Donations also have been pouring into Santorum’s campaign — of more than $2 million since Tuesday. He was the biggest attraction today when about 10,000 activists packed the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington.

Some of Santorum’s success in the new poll may be attributed to declining support for both Romney and Gingrich. Romney’s favorability rating has declined substantially in PPP’s polling and now stands at 44% — just one percentage point higher than the 43% who say they disapprove. Gingrich’s numbers are almost identical to those of Romney. Santorum remains highly popular, with 64% saying they approve and just 22% viewing him negatively.

Santorum is also besting Romney and the others with key demographic groups, including self-described very conservative voters, Tea Party voters and evangelicals.

The survey of 656 Republican primary voters was conducted Feb. 9-10 using automated telephone interviews and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.8 percentage points.

~Eowyn