Tag Archives: culture/society

Shocker: Geraldo Takes Stand Against Black Panther Leader Over Slave Reparations

Surprises come unexpectedly sometimes. On Fox News Channel’s July 11 broadcast of “Geraldo at Large,” an aggressive host Geraldo Rivera took on chairman of the New Black Panthers, Malik Zulu Shabazz over his political stands. “It is absolutely pathetic, it is so old-fashioned,” Rivera said. “What are you trying to do? Are you trying to be the big, bad nightmare?” Shabazz, leader of the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) rattled off one of his causes, Oscar Grant, but he leveraged him to make a case for reparations. “I’m trying to help Oscar Grant , who was shot down in cold blood by a white cop and I am trying to redeem, I am trying to redeem – put that camera back right over here, I am trying to redeem — and black people who have been lynched, raped or mobbed and have not been given reparations.” Rivera responded to his call. “You insult her memory when you engage in your hateful rhetoric,” Rivera said.  “I think that reparations is just like these welfare programs that have turned a generation into nothing but unproductive people.”

Visit link:
Shocker: Geraldo Takes Stand Against Black Panther Leader Over Slave Reparations

The Latest Animal Rights Cause in Wisconsin: ‘No Pig Wrestling’

My hometown of Viroqua, Wisconsin has become statewide news because a left-wing group called The Alliance for Animals is protesting the annual Wild West Days — in particular, its popular “Hog Wrasslin” contest. The LaCrosse Tribune had the story: VIROQUA — A Madison-based animal rights group has taken a public stand against one of the biggest attractions for Viroqua’s Wild West Days — pig wrestling. The Alliance for Animals wrote organizers of Wild West Days in late May, saying it had conferred with two attorneys who are of the opinion that pig wrestling “is in clear violation of the Wisconsin Statutes.” The Alliance notes in particular Chapter 951, titled “Crimes Against Animals,” which outlaws cockfighting, dogfighting and any other similar fighting between animals or animals and humans. Wild West Days organizer Jeffrey Menn said his group conferred with Vernon County District Attorney Tim Gaskell and officials from state and other groups to be certain the activities were legal. He said the 2010 “Hog Wrasslin’” competition, set for Aug. 21, will go on as scheduled. The Alliance for Animals is radical enough to insist on their website that human participants and spectators could be hurt: “We are deeply concerned about the illegality of these events and the threat they pose to animals, participants, and spectators.” They argue that not only are the wrestlers breaking the law, so are the spectators: Not only does the alliance believe those who operate or participate in pig wrestling competitions are breaking the law, it also claims anyone “being a spectator” of such an event  also is in violation of Chapter 951. Those prosecuted under Chapter 951 could face felony charges. “There’s no necessity to have a gladiatorial display of human brawn against an animal who doesn’t want to participate,” [the Alliance’s Lynn] Pauly said. “Our intent is always education. We believe that people are compassionate and moral and deep down, after thinking about it for a while, people will see (pig wrestling) is not right.” Liberals always define “education” as demonizing their enemies: “After our long cold winter we welcome the farmers’ markets, Brewers baseball games, family picnics, gardening, and sunshine. Unfortunately, summer in Wisconsin also means that the mean and stupid are bored, so local pig wrestling contests abound. Pig wrestling is cruel, embarrassing for most Wisconsinites, and against the law.” The Tribune story did not include the point that the animal is also not solicited for an opinion as to whether it wants to be pork chops and bacon. The D.A. was not impressed: Gaskell said he reviewed the letter from Alliance for Animals and spoke with Pauly. He said he disagrees with the legal position of Alliance for Animals. “When they specifically mention the examples, the intention is to maim or kill the animal,” Gaskell said. “With the pig wrestling,  there’s absolutely no intent to injure the animal. I would not prosecute the organizers, participants or the spectators.” Viroqua’s “hog wrasslin’” competition  draws more than 1,000 spectators and about 30 teams competing in men’s and women’s divisions. In the competition, a three-person team in a mud-filled pit attempts to grasp a pig and put it backside-first into a barrel. The team that gets the pig into the barrel the quickest wins. Rules prohibit grabbing a pig’s leg or snout and putting the pig under the mud. About two dozen pigs are placed in pens near the pig wrestling pit to be used in the competition. Sometimes fewer than a quarter of the teams get the pig in the barrel; some teams barely get a hand on the pig. Apparently, the Alliance for Animals would prefer a pig-massaging competition : People who run animal sanctuaries such as Pigs Peace Sanctuary describe pigs with human characteristics, because they’ve observed that, like us, they enjoy massages, listening to music, and playing.

Here is the original post:
The Latest Animal Rights Cause in Wisconsin: ‘No Pig Wrestling’

Leftist AOL Contributor Attacks Pope, Equates Him With Hezbollah Leader

AOL News contributor Paul Wachter launched an inflammatory attack on Pope Benedict XVI in a Thursday post where he also defended recently-fired CNN editor Octavia Nasr for her eulogy of Hezbollah’s spiritual leader. After hinting that the network “overreacted,” Wachter suggested that CNN should also fire “anyone who speaks highly of the pope, who…has contributed to the deaths of millions from AIDS.” Wachter began his commentary, ” Octavia Nasr Firing: Should CNN Also Ax Anyone Who Praises the Pope? ,” by recounting the former Middle Eastern affairs editor’s Tweet where she expressed how she was “sad to hear of the passing of Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah.. One of Hezbollah’s giants I respect a lot.” He then echoed Nasr’s own synopsis of the Hezbollah spiritual leader: “Fadlallah left a complex legacy. He was staunchly anti-Zionist, a defender of suicide bombings and approved of the suicide attacks on American barracks in Beirut during the United States’ ill-fated intervention in Lebanon during the country’s civil war. But he also championed women’s rights under Islam and spoke out against honor killings.” The writer, who also contributes to left-leaning publication such as New York Time Magazine, The Atlantic, and The Nation, then launched his attack on the Pope, and lumped in Jerry Fallwell for good measure at the end: An argument can be made that CNN has overreacted here , but if Nasr must go, is it too much to ask that the network at least be consistent going forward? Should it, for instance, also fire anyone who speaks highly of the pope, who covered up the clerical rape of young boys and whose anti-contraception proselytization has contributed to the deaths of millions from AIDS? Or anyone at the network who had a kind word for Jerry Fallwell, who said the United States was getting its just deserts with the 9/11 attacks and that the anti-Christ was among us, disguised as a Jewish man? So Wachter believes it’s a matter of established fact that the pontiff “covered up the clerical rape of young boys”? That’s not surprising, given the secular anti-Catholic company he keeps. As for the wild accusation that Benedict contributed to the deaths of millions from AIDS, it was CNN itself that came out on Wachter’s side last year after the Pope stated that condoms “increases the problem” of AIDS during his first trip to Africa. Correspondent Zain Verjee couldn’t seem to find any health “experts” who agreed with the Catholic leader during a March 17, 2009 report . CNN commentator Jack Cafferty condemned the pontiff’s remarks a day later , concluding that “it is past time for the Catholic Church to enter the 21st century, or at least try to drag itself out of the 13th century.” All of this came despite the fact that Dr. Edward Green of Harvard’s AIDS Prevention Research Project cited how the ” the best evidence we have supports the pope’s comments .” In any case, there’s little risk of Wachter’s hypothetical situation of a CNN employee praising the Pope happening any time soon, given the network’s slanted coverage of the priest sex abuse scandal so far during 2010 .

Read more here:
Leftist AOL Contributor Attacks Pope, Equates Him With Hezbollah Leader

CNN Again Omits Pro-Illegal Immigration Stance of ‘Public Defender’

On Wednesday’s Newsroom, CNN’s Tony Harris omitted the pro-illegal immigration activism of guest Isabel Garcia, just as his colleague Suzanne Malveaux did more than two months earlier . Harris twice referred to Garcia as merely the “deputy public defender in Pima County, Arizona,” and didn’t mention her involvement in the beating and decapitation of a pinata effigy of Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio. The anchor brought on the activist, as well as Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce, the author of the state newly-passed anti-illegal immigration law, for two segments starting 10 minutes into the 11 am Eastern hour. After asking Senator Pearce’s position on the federal government’s new lawsuit against the enforcement of his law, Harris turned to the public defender: “Isabel, you’ve been patient. Weigh in here.” Garcia (her pro-illegal immigration organization, Coalición de Derechos Humanos, whose website features a logo incorporating the southwestern states into Mexico, was identified on-screen as the “Human Rights Coalition”) immediately went on the offense against Pearce, playing the race/ethnicity card against the Republican politician: GARCIA: This is not about protecting anybody from Arizona. (Pearce laughs) In fact, if Mr. Pearce were responsible, he would, in fact, want to protect us and protect our values in this country. Clearly, this is a supremacy issue. I mean, it’s preposterous that he argued that the federal government doesn’t have the exclusive jurisdiction on this very complicated area of law. Certainly, Arizona cannot simply regulate immigration- and he is trying to regulate immigration. As much as he tries to hide it over and over, he knows full well that they have created a new offense of not having your documents with you. And the issue of racial profiling, that he can just wipe it away so easy- well, it’s because you’re a white person, Mr. Pearce . PEARCE: Oh, what an idiot. GARCIA: You don’t have any qualms about racial profiling at all . You should be concerned about our liberties in this country. You should be concerned about the facts. The facts are that immigrants are an absolute plus to our economy- always have been. That’s why we have 11 million undocumented people here, not because we’re giving give-outs, like you’re saying. In fact, it’s the exact opposite. Immigrants contribute much more than they ever take out in health care, in educational costs, in anything. You look at any credible study, Mr. Pearce- which you should, because you’re an elected official- you should have a real body of evidence before you start talking and endanger our entire community and endanger our country. The state senator didn’t get a chance to reply to Garcia’s racially-charged accusation because the anchor then broke for commercials. After the break, Harris asked Pearce, “You acknowledge that it, at some point, becomes a federal issue, and we’re here because the government hasn’t done enough in this area. And I’m curious, are you as angry at Congress- all of Congress- for not enacting new immigration legislation- and that is Republicans, Democrats and independents?” Once Pearce answered, Harris asked Garcia a similar question, but one from the left: “We’ve got a list of 11 Republican senators who voted for immigration reform in 2006 who aren’t doing much in the way of leadership on this issue at all right now….But Democratic leadership on this issue isn’t moving it forward as well. Do you have any anger right now for Speaker Pelosi, Senate Leader Reid? This was supposed to be the year for comprehensive immigration reform .” Near the end of her reply, the pro-illegal immigration activist proffered a conspiracy theory on the issue: GARCIA: Well, really, the responsibility lays not only in all the people you have mentioned, but in previous administrations, from Clinton, to the Bush administration, to the present Obama administration- is their inability to articulate the truth to the American public that we have caused the situation . Mr. Pearce talks about people not following the laws. Let me tell you, Mexicans, specifically, and other immigrants, have followed the rules. You know what the rules have been for 100 years? Come into the country in an unauthorized fashion so you can build our country. Do you really think we’ve got 11 million people that are benefitting so profusely from give-outs? Absolutely not. We depend on these 11 million people to feed us, to clothe us, to house us, and Mr. Pearce should be thanking them rather than demonizing them, because Arizona was selected by the federal government. It was no accident. This is not occurring because the federal government has not acted. It’s the opposite . HARRIS: Okay. Got you. GARCIA: It’s because they funneled everybody through Arizona to elect the likes of Mr. Pearce – HARRIS: Oh my. GARCIA: In order to become a laboratory for everything that’s anti-immigrant . One might be inclined to add Garcia’s out-there theory to the likes of 9/11 “trutherism” and “birtherism,” and all Harris had to say in response was “oh my”? Neither Harris, nor Malveaux during the April 23, 2010 interview, brought up the activist’s participation in a 2008 protest where the pinata effigy of Sheriff Arpaio was beaten and decapitated and where she carried the figure’s head down the street. Only CNN anchor Anderson Cooper fairly questioned the “public defender” on the incident during an October 2009 segment where she appeared with Arpaio .

See the article here:
CNN Again Omits Pro-Illegal Immigration Stance of ‘Public Defender’

British Feminist Journalist: Abortion ‘Lesser Evil’ Than ‘Misogyny’

Antonia Senior of The Times of London revealed her extremist position in favor of abortion in a June 30 column . Senior bluntly admitted that the intentional killing of the unborn was a cause she would be willing to die for, and while acknowledging it was “taking a life,” she labeled it was a ” lesser evil ,” for, in her view, “you cannot separate women’s rights from their right to fertility control.” The British journalist, is the personal finance editor for The Times, began her column with outlining the extent to which abortion is a core issue for her. Senior noted that in the Tower of London, there’s an “interactive display that ask visitors to vote on whether they would die for a cause.” After eliminating dolphins and even her own country of England as potential choices, she continued that she “could think of one cause I would stake my life on: a woman’s right to be educated, to have a life beyond the home and to be allowed by law and custom to order her own life as she chooses. And that includes complete control over her own fertility.” Senior then revealed her own internal turmoil over the issue of abortion: Yet something strange is happening to this belief that has, for so long, shaped my core; my moral certainty about abortion is wavering, my absolutist position is under siege . It’s not a baby, it’s a foetus, you God-squaddies [British derogatory slang for someone who is militant, roughly equivalent to “grunt”], the teenage me would have crowed at the pro-lifers. It’s a woman’s body, her choice, end of, I would have proclaimed in whatever patois we were speaking back then. The report last week by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which found that the human foetus cannot feel pain before 24 weeks, would have been waved triumphantly at anyone who crossed my path, along with an invitation to be taught the meaning of pain. This is not, you see, a rational debate, but one of passion and vitriol and tribalism. Then came a baby, and everything changed . I think of it as the Anna Karenina conundrum. If you read the book as a teenager, you back her choices with all the passion of youth. Love over convention, go Anna! Then you have children and realise that Anna abandons her son to shack up with a pretty soldier, and then her daughter when she jumps under a train. She becomes a selfish witch. Having a baby paints the world an entirely different hue. Black and white no longer quite cut it. The abortion issue hinges on the notion of life. The pro-life position is clear: a baby is a life, with rights, from the instant of conception. The pro-choice position insists that we are talking only about a potential life, with no rights. An embryo is not a person. Later, after delving into the semantics of the debate over abortion, the journalist made a remarkable admission, given her pro-abortion position: What seems increasingly clear to me is that, in the absence of an objective definition, a foetus is a life by any subjective measure . My daughter was formed at conception , and all the barely understood alchemy that turned the happy accident of that particular sperm meeting that particular egg into my darling, personality-packed toddler took place at that moment…. Any other conclusion is a convenient lie that we on the pro-choice side of the debate tell ourselves to make us feel better about the action of taking a life . Even with this admission, Senior cannot bring herself to part from her support for legalized abortion because of her die-hard feminism, and concluded her column by spouting some of her side’s talking points and included her “lesser evil” line about the murder of defenseless unborn babies: So we are left with a problem. A growing movement in America, spearheaded by Sarah Palin, is pro-life feminism, This attempts to decouple feminism from abortion rights, arguing that you can believe in a woman’s right to be empowered without believing in her right to abort. Its proponents report a groundswell of support among young women looking to reinvent their mothers’ ideology. But you cannot separate women’s rights from their right to fertility control . The single biggest factor in women’s liberation was our newly found ability to impose our will on our biology . Abortion would have been legal for millennia had it been men whose prospects and careers were put on sudden hold by an unexpected pregnancy. The mystery pondered on many a girls’ night out is how on earth men, bless them, managed to hang on to political and cultural hegemony for so long. The only answer is that they are not in hock to their biology as much as we are. Look at a map of the world and the right to abortion on request correlates pretty exactly with the expectation of a life unburdened by misogyny . As ever, when an issue we thought was black and white becomes more nuanced , the answer lies in choosing the lesser evil . The nearly 200,000 aborted babies in the UK each year are the lesser evil , no matter how you define life, or death, for that matter. If you are willing to die for a cause, you must be prepared to kill for it, too . Ms. Senior, the issue isn’t becoming “more nuanced.” By your own admission, our lives began at conception, and any claim to the contrary is a “convenient lie…to make us feel better about the action of taking a life.” It’s a crying shame that you can’t pull yourself out of your blind obedience to radical feminist dogma to make the right conclusion on the issue of abortion. [H/t: Ignatius Insight Scoop blog]

Read more:
British Feminist Journalist: Abortion ‘Lesser Evil’ Than ‘Misogyny’

The Trouble with Career Politicians

Politics was once an honored profession of high calling by men of strong principles and courage whose interest in being elected to these positions of public trust was to serve the country and make sure their generation left a better world to the next one. They were, for the most part, men of faith, men of integrity, commitment, practicality and common sense who viewed high political office as a term of service, not a lifetime vocation. They fought and won wars against far superior odds, battled economic downturns, abolished slavery and left us a rich endowment of federal papers documenting their vision of what the United States of America is and was meant to remain. It is a heartbreaking fact that nowadays politics has become not a calling but a game. Gaining public office is achieved by the most photogenic, the silver-tongued, the most attractive who look good on television and can raise the most money. We tend to pay more attention to the messenger than to the message, the one who can lie with the straightest face. Many times policy is achieved by backroom deals and downright sellouts. The leadership promising perks to make it look like Congressmen and Senators are bringing home the bacon to the folks back home to enhance their next election chances. They never stop to think about just whose bacon they’re sending and “by the people, for the people, of the people” has turned into, buy the people, fool the people and rob the people. And before any of you cherry pickers accuse me of taking sides, let me assure you that I’m talking about Democrats and Republicans. After all it was the Republicans who started this national debt spiral, the Democrats have just taken it to new and insane highs. Our founders did not design this system for career politicians, but rather citizen politicians who would serve a couple of terms and let someone fresh off the street serve, someone who is acquainted with what’s happening now, not twenty years ago when this bunch of hacks took office. Our political bodies were intended to be made up of common folk, doctors, druggists, farmers, carpenters, and some but not all lawyers. The corruption that plagues our political system is not just confined to the federal branch but rots our local and state governments as well. The one-sided attitude of the media I think dissuades a lot of honorable people from going into politics. If you’re not a member of the party the media supports they come after you with both barrels blazing, examining your whole life with a microscope trying to unearth some juicy little tidbit that will turn the public against you and undermine your campaign, and who wants to put their family through that. We need look no farther than the last presidential election to find proof of what I’m talking about. Look at the raging war that was waged against Sarah Palin. A media that actually turns a totally blind eye to childbirth out of wedlock acted as if Bristol Palin had committed a crime of immense and proportions. While Barack Obama, the all-time media darling, who sat under the preaching of a revolutionary racist for twenty years claimed he had never heard any of the inflammatory, anti-American rhetoric that regularly spewed from Jeremiah Wright’s mouth. He kept company with a sixties era terrorist who to this day wants to destroy the American way of life, and was never held accountable. Those who have sworn to serve you pass bills that they haven’t even read and the last thing they want is for we the people to find out what’s actually in them. There’s a dirty little club in Washington and the state capitols around this country, a club whose membership fees are to toe the line and be willing to sell out your own nation for a place at the big hog trough. And ladies and gentlemen, with the exception of a handful of good men and women who actually keep the faith in this pack of wolves, that’s what they are, pigs with and insatiable appetite for power.

Read more here:
The Trouble with Career Politicians

Network Morning Shows Unanimously Gush Over Larry King

The morning programs of the Big Three networks all sang the praises of CNN host Larry King after he announced on Tuesday his upcoming retirement from his program, while overlooking his liberal bent at times. Both Willie Geist on NBC’s Today show and CBS’s Harry Smith labeled King ” legendary ,” while ABC’s George Stephanopoulos heralded how he was ” on top of his game ” for most of his career. NBC correspondent Peter Alexander reused Geist’s “legendary” label, and chronicled the CNN personality’s “perch in prime time” during his 25 years on his Larry King Live program, spotlighting how he “has interviewed nearly 50,000 people over more than 50 years in broadcasting.” Alexander underlined this with clips from King’s interviews of Frank Sinatra, Ross Perot, and Paris Hilton, noting that ” if you wanted the country to listen, you sat down with Larry King .”  The correspondent also included a clip from Ken Baker of E! News, who stated that “whoever is going to replace Larry King has obviously very big shoes to fill .” CBS’s Smith used the “legendary” term in the top-of-the-hour tease at 7 am Eastern. Twenty minutes later, during a segment with substitute anchor Erica Hill, he described King’s 1985 premiere on CNN as a “grand experiment” and concluded that “twenty-five years later, it seemed to work out all right.” The two labeled him a “very interesting” and “good” guy. At the bottom of the hour, correspondent Jim Axelrod did a similar chronicle of the CNN host’s career to Alexander’s on NBC, choosing instead President Obama, Carrie Prejean, and Lady Gaga as the notables to highlight. His concluding line echoed Ken Baker’s line on NBC: ” Whoever gets the job, they won’t be easy suspenders to fill .” Smith then brought on The Washington Post’s  Howard Kurtz to discuss the host’s impending retirement, who, as Tim Graham noted earlier on Wednesday , speculated whether a “variety show” like King’s, where “you talk to a president one day and Lady Gaga the next,” could survive in an “increasingly partisan cable television universe.” ABC’s Stephanopoulos proclaimed the host ” the undisputed king of late night talk ” on Good Morning America and stated that “no one had a longer run and King was on top of his game for most of it .” After correspondent Dan Harris’s report on the CNN personality’s career, Harris, Stephanopoulos, and substitute anchor Elizabeth Vargas speculated on who would replace King. The former Clinton operative endorsed a liberal colleague of his at CBS: ” Katie Couric’s my pick . But, I guess she doesn’t want it.” The three morning programs did all mention how King’s past few years were “rocky,” as Stephanopoulos put it, between a decline in ratings and the reports of a possible divorce with his seventh wife. But they all omitted his occasional shots at conservatives, as MRC’s Notables Quotables chronicled over the years.

Here is the original post:
Network Morning Shows Unanimously Gush Over Larry King

CNN’s Soledad O’Brien Sympathizes With Lesbian Teen’s Plight

On Monday’s Campbell Brown program, CNN’s Soledad O’Brien presented a one-sided report about a lesbian teenager in Mississippi whose senior portrait was left out of her school’s yearbook because she chose to have it taken in a tux, defying the school’s rules. O’Brien commiserated with the teen, asking her at one point, “I want people to understand because other people will say- oh, for God’s sake, it’s just a picture. So explain to us, what does it feel like to not be where you’re supposed to be?” Anchor John Roberts introduced the special correspondent’s near the end of the 8 pm Eastern hour by trying to make a tenuous connection between the report and the continuing major news of the Gulf oil leak: “All eyes are on Gulfport, Mississippi this morning as the President arrived for the first leg of his three-state tour, but about 150 miles north of the Gulf, in a small town called Wesson, the big news this season was all about the high school yearbook. It was here that a teenager’s senior picture triggered an unexpected backlash, and sparked outrage throughout the state.” O’Brien sympathized with Ceara Sturgis, the teen from Wesson, Mississippi, from the start of her report: “For 18-year-old senior Ceara Sturgis, her high school yearbook is more than a collection of memories. It’s about her struggle to be who she is in tiny Wesson, Mississippi, population about 2,000.” After asking the lesbian to describe herself (“18 years old and I’m gay. I don’t like people to push me around, especially when I have the right, and I don’t give up.”), the correspondent continued that “what she didn’t give up on was her fight to get this picture in her yearbook, a picture she took wearing a tuxedo instead of the traditional dress, called a drape.” Later, O’Brien got the closest to providing the other side when she provided quotes from the Wesson high school principal and the district office administrator. But she also let Sturgis and her mother cast the principal in a negative light: O’BRIEN: Principal Ronald Greer refused to print the picture of Ceara in a tux in the yearbook. Neither the principal nor the school’s superintendent would talk with us. After repeated calls, the district office administrator told us- quote, ‘We are done.’ Back in October, the principal told the Jackson TV station, he wasn’t able to comment- quote, ‘on that particular situation.’ Ceara and her mom believe the main reason the photo was vetoed- Principal Greer’s attitude towards homosexuality . The CNN special correspondent got the most sympathetic towards toward the Mississippi teen near the end of her report: O’BRIEN: Shortly after prom, Ceara got her copy of the yearbook. Her portrait wasn’t in it. O’BRIEN (on-camera): Where would you be? STURGIS: Between there and there. O’BRIEN: So you should be like right here. STURGIS: Yeah. I figured that if we kept fighting for a little bit, they would just end up changing their mind because I didn’t think it was a big deal. O’BRIEN: What did it feel like to not be there? STURGIS: It made me sad. O’BRIEN: Well, tell me. STURGIS: It made me feel bad. O’BRIEN: I’m not trying to make you feel bad. But I want people to understand because other people will say- oh, for God’s sake, it’s just a picture. So explain to us, what does it feel like to not be where you’re supposed to be? STURGIS: (crying) It’s not fair. O’BRIEN: Why is it not fair? STURGIS: I don’t know- okay, let’s say we put it in the yearbook, would anyone hurt like I hurt since I’m not in the yearbook? It wouldn’t hurt anyone. O’BRIEN (voice-over): She’s thinking about suing. It won’t put her picture in Wesson’s 2010 yearbook, but she says it may help other gay kids in Mississippi. STURGIS: All right, now just do a serious face. O’BRIEN: And at this point, that’s what Ceara’s thinking about. Reporting, in America, Soledad O’Brien, CNN, Wesson, Mississippi. Roberts hinted that O’Brien had another report on a homosexual teen in the works after her report finished: “And later this week, Ceara’s story inspires another Mississippi teen to stand up and speak out. We’ll have her story.” The anchor also promoted the correspondent’s upcoming one-sided special report ‘Gary and Tony Have a Baby,’ which she recently previewed for homosexual activist group GLAAD . CNN found it fitting to spend an entire four-minute-plus report to this lesbian teen’s plight, but when pro-life activist James Pouillon was murdered in September 2009, the network devoted only one anchor brief to the story: “A shooting spree near Flint, Michigan, leaves two dead. A local anti- abortion activist was killed in a drive by shooting this morning while protesting in front of Owosso High School. The gunman then drove to a local business where he shot and killed the owner. Police arrested a 33-year-old suspect who they say planned to kill a third man.”

Read the rest here:
CNN’s Soledad O’Brien Sympathizes With Lesbian Teen’s Plight

Nickelodeon Game Site Lets Kids Play at Trying to Look Up Skirt of ‘Naughty’ Cartoon Teachers

Parents who assume the Nickelodeon website is kid-friendly should think again – its homepage links to a sister website called AddictingGames.com that features racy, sex-focused video games like “Naughty Babysitter,” “Booty Rider,” and “You da Sperm!” AddictingGames.com is owned by Nickelodeon’s parent company, Viacom, but can be accessed directly from the Nick.com homepage. On AddictingGames.com, the “Nickelodeon” logo is featured prominently on the upper right corner of the screen – suggesting that the site is appropriate for a young demographic. Nick.com describes itself as “THE place for kids to play games online!” There will even be an entire show devoted to promoting an AddictingGames.com contest airing on Nickelodeon’s TV station on June 19. But with videogames starring busty, panty-clad cartoon characters, AddictingGames.com seems more suitable for the MTV crowd than Nickelodeon’s gradeschool-aged fans.

Kyra Phillips Falsely Claims Pope Benedict XVI Hasn’t Said He’s Sorry

CNN’s Kyra Phillips completely got it wrong on Friday’s Newsroom as she reported on Pope Benedict XVI’s latest apology for the priestly sex abuse scandal. Even after she reported that Pope was ” begging for forgiveness ,” Phillips repeatedly claimed that ” there are two simple words we haven’t heard: I’m sorry .” The Pope has actually used those words and has made multiple apologies. The CNN anchor led the 9 am Eastern hour with the pontiff’s request for forgiveness, which he made at a Mass in St. Peter’s Square to close out the Catholic Church’s Year for Priests, which began on June 19, 2009 and ends June 19 this year: “Here’s what we’re working on right now. Sex abuse in the Catholic Church- the Holy Father begs forgiveness, promises never again . But why is it that being Pope means never having to say, I’m sorry .” Despite the continuing the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico and other top stories, Phillips highlighted the Pope’s comments, along with the teenager stranded at sea and the opening of the World Cup in South Africa. After her promos for those three stories, the anchor introduced a live report from CNN correspondent Paula Newton and included a clip from Benedict XVI’s homily: PHILLIPS: We begin with Pope Benedict XVI is begging for forgiveness. Today, he told thousands of his followers gathered at the Vatican that he will never allow priests to abuse children ever again. But is this plea for forgiveness enough? Well, not for critics. Here’s what the Pope said. POPE BENEDICT XVI (through translator): We too insistently beg forgiveness from God and from the persons involved, while promising to do everything possible to ensure that such abuse will never occur again. And that in admitting men to priestly ministry and in their formation, we’ll do everything we can to weigh the authenticity of their vocation. PHILLIPS: Okay. As you just heard, the Pope is asking for forgiveness, but still, there are two simple words we haven’t heard: I’m sorry . CNN’s Paula Newton, live in Rome- so Paula, why can’t the Pope just say, I’m sorry for this global sex scandal? Actually, Kyra, Benedict XVI did use those “two simple words” in his March 19 pastoral letter to the Catholics of Ireland , and added an extra word when he directly addressed those who were abused by priests: “You have suffered grievously and I am truly sorry . I know that nothing can undo the wrong you have endured….It is understandable that you find it hard to forgive or be reconciled with the Church. In her name, I openly express the shame and remorse that we all feel .” Moreover, isn’t “begging for forgiveness” another way of saying “sorry”? The Pope also met with some of the victims of abuse during his April 2008 visit to the U.S., and addressed the scandal during a homily in New York City . Later that year, he apologized again , this time for the sex abuse in Australia while he visited that country. Phillips’s colleague Jessica Yellin made the same false claim nearly two months earlier during a April 16 segment . Yellin asked, “Why is he [the Pope] having such a hard time saying he’s sorry?” Newton then compounded Phillips’s falsehood by answering, “Centuries of theology says that he can’t. A very formal mea culpa was really not going to happen here, Kyra, although that’s what victims’ groups said that they wanted.” She spent the rest of the report delivering the talking points of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP): NEWTON: You know, in listening to what the Pope said, victims’ groups we spokes to said- look, they were gratified that at least he was speaking about it openly. And he said- he asked for forgiveness in a way that he has done privately, but not so publicly, in front of the audience of priests the way he did.   But, you know, I spoke with a Barbara Doris, of the survivors’ network SNAP, and she was quite critical. I want you to listen to this, Kyra. She said to me, ‘This was not very meaningful without the reform. The words ring hollow. It’s like I slapped you, I say I’m sorry, and I continue to slap you.’ Her bottom line, Kyra: not one child is any safer today because of those words. Her point is that reform- true reform at the Vatican has not been started. What she wanted to hear was the Pope address- say I’m sorry, do the mea culpa, which would have been historical, and then also, tell priests- look, if you know of anyone who has abused children around the world, turn them in right now, whether it was in the past or going on right now. Beyond that, they believe the Vatican has a corrupt bureaucracy, and they want that reformed. They say the Pope is a long way from doing that. Kyra? PHILLIPS: Corruption that has to be dealt with- Paula Newton, thanks. Phillips has made no secret that she supports left-wing changes to the Catholic Church. During a March 26, 2010 segment , she brought on three heterodox Christians who advocate the acceptance of homosexual behavior and the ordination of women without anyone from the opposing side and endorsed their agenda: “I think all three of you need to head to the Vatican and institute some change.” The anchor brought back two of those guests nearly a month later on April 21.

Visit link:
Kyra Phillips Falsely Claims Pope Benedict XVI Hasn’t Said He’s Sorry