A major Democratic donor was convicted on Tuesday of running a massive Ponzi scheme that siphoned millions from victims. 85-year-old Tom Girardi bragged about the influence he had bought from politicians and referred to himself as a "limousine liberal," according to the Los Angeles Times. 'The clients he wronged for many years have now found actual justice.' The wealthy Los Angeles attorney had set up a bank account for settlement agreements from his clients, but he stole from the account to fund his lavish lifestyle until he was caught. “His clients sought his help in the wake of significant trauma and injury, yet he violated their trust to steal from them and fund his own lavish lifestyle, and he will now face the consequences of his actions," said IRS Criminal Investigation agent Tyler Hatcher. Even as his finances were collapsing, Girardi kept dishing out donations to a who's who of Democratic stars, including Hillary Clinton, President Joe Biden, former President Barack Obama, Gov. Gavin Newsom, and the late U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California. The Times said that few of the campaigns responded when asked if they would return the ill-gotten funds from the disgraced former attorney. Girardi was disbarred from California in 2022, and his law firm was forced into involuntary bankruptcy. He was the attorney in the famous case that was dramatized in the popular movie "Erin Brockovich." The Democrat will be sentenced on Dec. 6 and faces up to 20 years in prison for each of the four counts of wire fraud. “Girardi falsely promoted himself in the media as a pillar of the legal community with a heightened sense of justice, but the clients he wronged for many years have now found actual justice in today's verdict," said FBI special agent Akil Davis. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Hollywood celebrities took a break from cosplaying the ‘50s-era blacklist in “Trumbo” and “Good Night, and Good Luck” to start a new version. But communists needn’t fear the Hollywood blacklist 2.0.Such hypocrisy is par for the course in a town that seems to get all of its political opinions from Aaron Sorkin screenplays.The ones looking over their shoulders on film and TV sets these days are conservatives. Or, in the case of Cheryl Hines, the conservative-adjacent. Hines is a registered Democrat, like her husband, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. But now that RFK Jr. has bowed out of the 2024 presidential race and backed Donald Trump, Hollywood has pretty much revoked the "Curb Your Enthusiasm" alum's liberal privilege.It's not that Hines herself has endorsed Trump. Instead, her offense is in suggesting that Trump supporters like her husband may in fact have the country's best interests at heart, whether or not you agree with them. Cue the Hollywood Reporter, which uncorked a veiled threat at Hines:But despite the show of unity with her husband, Kennedy’s decision to align himself so closely with Trump will make for, at best, some awkward dinner table conversations at home; at worst, it may result in a full-scale shunning of Hines by the Hollywood establishment.Why would THR say that? It’s an industry bible and knows what goes on behind the scenes in La La Land. That’s why.The magazine understands that openly conservative stars like James Woods and Kevin Sorbo no longer work in Hollywood due to their beliefs. Both stars lost their respective agents due to political differences.The Oscar-nominated Woods is essentially retired from Hollywood films. Sorbo mostly works in self-produced features. The “Hercules” star cares more about freedom and dignity than echoing the industry’s mandated talking points.And for every loud and proud conservative like screen legend Jon Voight, there are many others (actors, screenwriters, crew members) who keep quiet for fear of professional retaliation.Conservative artists once met in private across Los Angeles under the moniker Friends of Abe. They networked, swapped discriminatory horror stories, and, sometimes, wept over the mistreatment.Or, as THR calls it, “shunning.” Hines’ full-scale shunning may already have started.Former “West Wing” star Bradley Whitford attacked Hines on social media."Hey @CherylHines, way to stay silent while your lunatic husband throws his support behind the adjudicated rapist who brags about stripping women of their fundamental rights. Gutsy. Great example for the kids. Profile in courage," Whitford wrote on X.Whitford more recently appeared in deranged dystopian fantasy series "The Handmaid's Tale," a show he often cites as reflective of the right's intolerant, anti-women policies. And yet the outspoken feminist — who by all accounts ranks higher in the Hollywood pecking order than Hines — seems more than happy to bully a 58-year-old woman for having the "wrong" opinion. Punch down much, Bradley?Such hypocrisy is par for the course in a town that seems to get all of its political opinions from Aaron Sorkin screenplays.Perhaps the upcoming “Reagan” could have a used a rewrite from the "American President" scribe. Maybe then the film's marketers wouldn't have found their promotion of the film throttled by Facebook. But the Dennis Quaid-starring biopic dares to portray our country’s 40th president in a favorable light — and to offer work to Voight and Sorbo as well as other openly conservative stars like Nick Searcy and Robert Davi.Naturally, “Reagan,” which premieres August 30, was made outside the Hollywood ecosystem. That's the blacklist 2.0 for you. You won't hear any complaints from Whitford — or from most of his peers.Emmy winner Alec Baldwin did allow that such anti-conservative bias is “unfortunate” in an Instagram post. It’s notable that the high-profile Democrat keeps working despite a history of angry outbursts and an on-set accident in which he shot and killed the film’s cinematographer, Halyna Hutchins.Then again, Hollywood loves second acts. As long as you can still make somebody money, there are very few mistakes you can't come back from.Unfortunately for Cheryl Hines, being MAGA by association probably is one of them.

What are Crocs? They are shoes, kind of. But these hideous objects that remind you of some kind of toxic nuclear waste aren’t merely shoes. They are something more. Or they represent something more. Crocs are an abolishment of standard. A signal of the bottom rung as the standard rung. Degeneration in the form of a squishy synthetic mold littered with holes designed to let your smelly feet breathe.Crocs are, to no small degree, a physical representation of a much larger phenomenon, a darker phenomenon. Crocs are the physical embodiment of a culture and society turning away from form and distinction and instead mutating into formless matter. Crocs represent a society that has stopped developing and evolving and has settled into regression as its trajectory for the time being. Crocs are the quintessential example of our current cultural degeneration in the form of footwear. Crocs prove that "Idiocracy" (2006) was a documentary.Defenders of Crocs claim that they are comfortable. I am sure they are. That’s the point. Crocs are part of the comfort worship that appears to be a core value in America 2024. Comfort at any cost is not a sign of ascent. It’s not a sign of development. It’s not a sign of aesthetic taste, determination, or refined dignity. It’s a sign of giving up. It’s a sign of a culture that has reached an end point and decided to sit back and relax while everything crumbles. As long as we are comfortable and entertained, nothing else matters. If, at the height of the 20th century, we saw men in suits and ties, slicked hair, and clean-shaven faces, at the (hopefully) low point of the 21st century, we see men in sweatpants, sweatshirts, and clown-like shoes. The trajectory here is clear. It is one of descent. In the world of Crocs, man is shrinking. Man is no longer severe and capable, outward-facing and determined. He is relaxed and comfortable, well-fed and entertained, stupid and goofy. Degenerating. If you described a pair of Crocs to your grandparents half a century ago, they would, undoubtably, laugh. If you told them that people would be wearing these in public in 50 years, they would stop laughing. They would start worrying.What is the difference between the oxblood loafer and the neon-red Croc? Everything. One is a shoe made of natural materials. The other is some unholy synthetic creation. One is a shoe of dignity. The other is the shoe of a clown. Crocs are, simply put, shoes for clowns. They are shoes that don’t demand to be taken seriously. They are shoes to be laughed at. They are so accepted today that it is easy to forget just how preposterous they are. It’s easy to forget how degrading degeneration can be.There is no sexy heel in the world of Crocs. There is no woman who puts on lime-green Crocs because they make her feel beautiful. Crocs don’t make her legs look appealing or her stance alluring. There is no man who puts on a yellow pair of Crocs because they make him feel strong. They don’t make him appear serious or reveal a sense of intention in his approach to the world. Crocs add nothing of value and only detract. Crocs exacerbate and accelerate a world of androgyny. They lessen the beauty of woman and the strength of man. Crocs play a small role in making the world a less romantically charged place. “I look like an idiot.” That’s what your great-grandfather might say if you traveled back in time and put a pair of Crocs on his feet. Is there any place for this phrase in 2024? Is it possible to look like an idiot? Can you really look like an idiot if everyone else looks like an idiot? Being concerned about looking like an idiot is a fear that only exists in a society that demands that you don’t. That only exists in a society with some standard and expectation.Crocs are an abolishment of standard. A signal of the bottom rung as the standard rung. Degeneration in the form of a squishy synthetic mold littered with holes designed to let your smelly feet breathe. The Croc makes no effort to be anything at all. It’s formless matter. It possesses no aesthetic value. It is comfort and ease. That is it. It has no history, no cultural continuity, no story. It requires (and assumes) no thinking or consideration. There is no thought given to how it will pair with your belt or your shirt. It is not a part of a well-put-together outfit. It is a shoe for an unthinking populace with no higher value than comfort. When "Idiocracy" was being produced, the costume department decided on Crocs for the standard footwear due to their affordability and the absurd aesthetic that suited the degraded state of society portrayed in the film. Allegedly, the team assumed that these idiotic shoes would never become popular. They thought they were simply too stupid. Whether these details are all true is somewhat irrelevant. They were wrong in the end. Crocs did become popular. America of 2024 is eerily similar to the scene in "Idiocracy" where Luke Wilson, wearing a sweatsuit and Crocs, wanders into a Costco the size of a small city. He is greeted by a worker who repeats over and over again: “Welcome to Costco, I love you.” Sweatpants, sweatshirt, Crocs, and Costco. "Idiocracy" was a documentary.

The observatory dates back to the sixth century B.C.E. and "confirms the ingenuity and skill of the ancient Egyptians in astronomy since ancient times." The post Archaeologists Unearth An Observatory Where Ancient Egyptians Once Studied The Sun And The Stars appeared first on All That's Interesting.

Kamala Harris Campaign Slams the Brakes on Her RIDICULOUS EV Mandate (For Now)

Politico Is Greatly Offended by J.D. Vance Pointing Out Kamala Harris Is Joe Biden's Vice President

Hundreds of Former GOP Staffers Call Another Trump Term ‘Untenable’

Not a Good Look: The Army Fires Three Top Sergeants in a Month

Megyn Kelly Delivers the Perfect Response to Harris Needing to Do Joint Interview With Walz

'DISMISSED!' Trump Responds to Jack Smith's Superseding Indictment