Tag Archives: history

Same-sex Marriage Judge Finds That a Child Has Neither a Need Nor a Right to a Mother

Posted on August 9, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who ruled last week that a voter-approved amendment to California’s constitution that limited marriage to the union of one man and one woman violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, based that ruling in part on his finding that a child does not need and has no right to a mother.   Nor, he found, does a child have a need or a right to a father.   “Children do not need to be raised by a male parent and a female parent to be well-adjusted, and having both a male and a female parent does not increase the likelihood that a child will be well-adjusted,” the judge wrote in finding of fact No. 71 in  his opinion .   “The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment,” the judge stated in finding of fact No. 70. “The sexual orientation of an individual does not determine whether that individual can be a good parent. Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted. The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology.”   Despite Walker’s claim that this “fact” is “beyond serious debate,” one of the sources he cited for it was a  brochure  published by the American Psychological Association (APA) that was entered into evidence in the case, which specifically stated twice: “Few studies are available regarding children of gay fathers.” Walker did not quote this part of the brochure in his opinion.   However, Walker did quote this same brochure as saying: “[S]ocial science has shown that the concerns often raised about children of lesbian and gay parents–concerns that are generally grounded in prejudice against and stereotypes about gay people–are unfounded.”   This quote comes from a side-bar box on page five of the six-page APA brochure. The box purports to answer the “most common questions” about homosexual parents, posing four such questions and giving the APA’s answer to them.   The first is: “Do children of lesbian and gay parents have more problems with sexual identity than do children of heterosexual parents?”   The full answer in the brochure is as follows: “For instance, do these children develop problems in gender identity and/or in gender role behavior? The answer from research is clear: sexual and gender identities (including gender identity, gender-role behavior, and sexual orientation) develop in much the same way among children of lesbian mothers as they do among children of heterosexual parents. Few studies are available regarding children of gay fathers.”   The brochure does not explain why the APA concludes that the “answer from research is clear” that children of homosexual parents do not have more problems with sexual identity than children with mothers and fathers when in fact, as the brochure itself states, “[f]ew studies are available regarding children of gay fathers.” Nor does Judge Walker explain how his finding of “fact” that the gender of parents does not matter to children is “beyond serious debate” when in fact his own source stipulates that “[f]ew studies are available regarding children of gay fathers.”   The second question answered in the brochure is:  “Do children raised by lesbian or gay parents have problems in personal development in areas other than sexual identity?”   The entirety of the answer provided in the brochure states:  “For example, are the children of lesbian or gay parents more vulnerable to mental breakdown, do they have more behavior problems, or are they less psychologically healthy than other children? Again, studies of personality, self-concept, and behavior problems show few differences between children of lesbian mothers and children of heterosexual parents. Few studies are available regarding children of gay fathers.” Judge Walker does not quote this part of the brochure in his finding that the gender of parents does not matter, nor does he explain how his finding can be “beyond serious debate” when in fact the very evidence he uses to establish this point states that “[f]ew studies are available regarding gay fathers.”   To further his case that the well-being of children is no bar to declaring same-sex marriage a right protected  by the Fourteenth Amendment, Judge Walker makes a finding of fact that the state of California already legally recognizes that the gender of parents is irrelevant.  As Walker reports it, California laws goes so far as to “encourage” homosexuals to acquire children whether through adoption, foster care, or artificially conceiving a child and, presumably, in the case of a male-male couple, securing a female to gestate the child until the male-male couple can take custody of it.   “California law permits and encourages gays and lesbians to become parents through adoption, foster parenting or assistive reproductive technology,” writes Walker in finding of fact No. 49. “Approximately 18 percent of same-sex couples in California are raising children.”   To support this finding, Walker notes that California’s attorney general, who is Jerry Brown, “admits that the laws of California recognize no relationship between a person’s sexual orientation and his or her ability to raise children.”   “Attorney General admits,” writes Walker, “that California law protects the right of gay men and lesbians in same-sex relationships to be foster parents and to adopt children by forbidding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.” Walker’s ruling declaring same-sex marriage protected under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, if upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, would have ramifications far beyond California, requiring states across the union to recognize same-sex marriages while wiping out any legal protection a child might have from being handed over by state governments to same-sex couples either through adoption or foster parenthood.   The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as applied by Walker would require states to grant a marriage license to same-sex couples and would-be parents, while implicitly annihilating the notion that each American child has an equal right to a mother and a father.    A child put out for adoption or foster parenting by the state, or a child conceived through technological means and gestated in a hired womb, would have no right not to be assigned to a homosexual couple who would act as his or her father and father or mother and mother. Crossposted at NB sister site CNS News   

Read the rest here:
Same-sex Marriage Judge Finds That a Child Has Neither a Need Nor a Right to a Mother

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , ,

CBS’s Dickerson Questions ‘Claim’ That California Judge in Prop 8 Ruling Openly Gay

Posted on August 9, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

During a discussion of California’s Proposition 8 being overturned on CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday, fill-in host John Dickerson questioned Family Research Council President Tony Perkins’s assertion that the federal judge who made the ruling was openly gay: “You mention this claim that he’s openly homosexual. I’m not sure if that’s, in fact, the case.” Perkins replied by citing his source on Judge Vaughn Walker’s sexual orientation: “Well, that, according to The San Francisco Chronicle, that he is openly homosexual, one of two federal judges.” Thursday’s Good Morning America on ABC reported that fact as well, even while NBC’s Today and the CBS Early Show failed to mention it. Dickerson followed his doubt of Perkins by arguing: “…whether [Walker] is or isn’t, what basis – what bearing does that have on the case?” Perkins responded: “…had this guy been a – say, an evangelical preacher in his past, there would have been cries for him to step down from this case. So I do think it has a bearing on the case.” Dickerson countered: “You think it’s made his ruling skewed?”   An examination of the kind of language used in Walker’s opinion demonstrates a clear bias against supporters of Proposition 8: “The evidence at trial regarding the campaign to pass Proposition 8 uncloaks the most likely explanation for its passage: a desire to advance the belief that opposite-sex couples are morally superior to same-sex couples. The campaign relied heavily on negative stereotypes about gays and lesbians…” As attorney Ed Whelan explained in a February 7 post for National Review Online : “Walker’s entire course of conduct has only one sensible explanation: that Walker is hellbent to use the case to advance the cause of same-sex marriage. Given his manifest inability to be impartial, Walker should have recused himself from the beginning, and he remains obligated to do so now.” While Dickerson was quick to question a completely accurate statement from Perkins, he allowed a glaringly misstatement from left-wing attorney David Boies to go unchallenged. Boies, who along with attorney Ted Olsen lead the lawsuit against Proposition 8, ranted against Perkins and others opposed to the judge’s ruling: “Well, it’s easy to sit around and debate and throw around opinions, appeal to people’s fear and prejudice….it’s very easy for the people who want to deprive gay and lesbian citizens of the right to vote to make all sorts of statements and campaign literature…” While it seems clear that Boies simply misspoke and meant to say “right to marry” instead of “right to vote,” Dickerson made no effort to correct the record for viewers. Boies concluded his rant by sanctimoniously proclaiming: “We put fear and prejudice on trial, and fear and prejudice lost.” Perkins began to respond: “That is absolutely not true-” But Dickerson just moved on to the next question, pressing Perkins: “The judge in this case said that the state has to find some kind of harm created by same-sex marriage. There has to be empirical evidence. Mr. Boies says, and the judge says, there was no evidence on that case. So what harm – give us some evidence, in terms of the harm that would be created by allowing same-sex marriages?” As NewsBusters’ Noel Sheppard earlier reported , the segment that followed, with CBS legal analyst Jan Crawford and Washington Post writer Dan Balz, was remarkably balanced on the issue. Crawford noted that it would be an “enormous stretch” for the U.S. Supreme Court to agree with Walker’s ruling. Here is a full transcript of the August 8 segment with Boies and Perkins: 10:38AM JOHN DICKERSON: Joining us now to discuss the California ruling on same-sex marriage: from San Francisco, David Boies, one of the lead attorneys for the plaintiffs; and Tony Perkins, the head of the Family Research Council, he is in Wichita Falls, Texas. Mr. Boies, I want to start with you. After the judge ruled in your favor, he put a stay on marriages going forward. I want to know, with so much legal fighting ahead on this issue, why should marriages be reinstated immediately? DAVID BOIES [CHAIRMAN, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER]: I think the issue is not whether they ought to be reinstated immediately, but whether you ought to have marriage equality. I think that courts can differ in terms of whether this goes into effect immediately or after an appeal. I think the critical issue here is that what you have is a district court finding after a full trial, everybody had an opportunity to be heard, an opinion that demonstrates that there is simply no basis whatsoever to continue discrimination against gay and lesbian citizens who want to marry. DICKERSON: Tony Perkins, you said this ruling, this decision left you speechless. What’s your reaction going to be now? TONY PERKINS [PRESIDENT, FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL]: Well, this is not without political parallel. I mean, you go back to the 1970s and abortion was nowhere near the political issue that it is today when the court interjected itself in 1973 to this issue. And this issue is not going to go away. I think what you have is one judge who thinks he knows – and a district level judge, and an openly homosexual judge at that, who says he knows better than not only 7 million voters in the state of California, but voters in 30 states across the nation that have passed marriage amendments. This is far from over. DICKERSON: You mention this claim that he’s openly homosexual. I’m not sure if that’s, in fact, the case. But whether he is or isn’t, what basis – what bearing does that have on the case? PERKINS: Well, that, according to The San Francisco Chronicle, that he is openly homosexual, one of two federal judges. And I think, you know, had this guy been a – say, an evangelical preacher in his past, there would have been cries for him to step down from this case. So I do think it has a bearing on the case. But this is not without precedent- DICKERSON: But you think it’s made his – you think it’s made his ruling skewed? PERKINS: This is not without precedent. Well, I mean, you look at – he ignored a lot of the social science in – in his opinion. But in Nebraska, in 2005, there was a similar ruling by another federal district level judge. It was overturned in the Eighth Circuit unanimously. So there is certainly, not only based upon the social empirical data that’s out there, but on the legal basis, this is a flawed decision. And as I said, it’s far from over. DICKERSON: David Boies, the one thing you mentioned, that the judge spent a great deal of time on the facts of the case here. What’s your response to Mr. Perkins? BOIES: Well, it’s easy to sit around and debate and throw around opinions, appeal to people’s fear and prejudice, cite studies that either don’t exist or don’t say what you say they do. In a court of law, you’ve got to come in and you’ve got to support those opinions. You’ve got to stand up under oath in cross-examination. And what we saw at trial is that it’s very easy for the people who want to deprive gay and lesbian citizens of the right to vote to make all sorts of statements and campaign literature, or in debates, where they can’t be cross-examined, but when they come into court and they have to support those opinions and they have to defend those opinions under oath and cross-examination, those opinions just melt away. And that’s what happened here. There simply wasn’t any evidence. There weren’t any of those studies. There weren’t any empirical studies. That’s just made up. That’s junk science. And it’s easy to say that on television. But a witness stand is a lonely place to lie. When you come into court, you can’t do that. And that’s what we proved. We put fear and prejudice on trial, and fear and prejudice lost. DICKERSON: Mr. Perkins, I want to- PERKINS: -that is absolutely- DICKERSON: Well, let me ask you- PERKINS: That is absolutely not true- DICKERSON: The judge in this case said that the state has to find some kind of harm created by same-sex marriage. There has to be empirical evidence. Mr. Boies says, and the judge says, there was no evidence on that case. So what harm – give us some evidence, in terms of the harm that would be created by allowing same-sex marriages? PERKINS: Well, a lot of the discussion was about the issue of children and how children are impacted by this. This is so relatively new that there is not conclusive evidence to suggest that children who grow up with two moms or two dads fare as well as children who grow up with a mom and a dad. Now, we do have an abundance of evidence over the last 40 years, from the social sciences, that show us that public policy that has devalued marriage, through laws such as no-fault divorce, has truly impacted children and impacted the institution of marriage. And the judge, in his ruling, actually over – just ignored all of that and said that there is no evidence that any of the policy that’s been adopted on no-fault divorce and other liberal-leaning policies has impacted marriage. And I think anybody with a half a brain can see that the policies that have been adopted in the last 40 years have impacted marriage and, as a result, have impacted the well-being of children. DICKERSON: Mr. Boies, let me ask you a question about where this case goes from here. There is a view among a lot of legal scholars- BOIES: Let me – let me just respond. DICKERSON: Quickly, if you could? BOIES: Let me just respond to that, okay? Okay, very quickly. Look it, the judge did deal with it. And he pointed out, which is obvious, is that no-fault divorce doesn’t have anything to do with the issue that’s here. The empirical studies that do exist – and they’re based on what’s happened in Canada and Sweden and Spain and other countries and other states where you are able to have marriage equality – demonstrate that there is no harm. There are studies going back for 20 years that demonstrate this. The problem here is that, unlike a court, people don’t stick to the facts. DICKERSON: OK, let me ask you, on the question of the Supreme Court, where this may end up one day, there is a view that the court doesn’t like to get too far out in front of where the law is now. Isn’t this a big leap for the Supreme Court to side with you, Mr. Boies, in this case? BOIES: It really isn’t. Remember, unlike abortion, the court is not creating a new legal right. This is a right that has been well-recognized for 100 years, in terms of the right of individuals to marry. And all that’s at issue here is, can the state of California take away that right depending on the sex of your intended partner? And that issue depends exactly on what you said before. Is there a rational basis for that distinction? Can you prove that it harms heterosexual marriage, children? Can you prove it harms anybody? Why do you make these people suffer if it doesn’t help anybody? And what we proved at trial is that there simply isn’t any basis, no evidence at all, to indicate that this has any harm to anybody. And, indeed, all of the evidence is to the contrary. That it makes those relationships more stable. Even the defendant’s own witnesses admitted that there was no evidence of harm to heterosexual marriage or to children as a result of gay and lesbian marriage. Even the defendant’s own experts admitted that there was great harm to homosexual couples and the children they’re raising by depriving them of the stability and love of marriage. DICKERSON: Mr. Perkins, I want to ask you about the Republican Party. Usually – often in cases like this, you hear Republican politicians jump to decry these kinds of rulings. It’s been pretty muted so far. Why do you think that is? PERKINS: Well, there’ll be a ruling – there’ll be a resolution introduced in Congress this coming week when the House is pulled back in by Nancy Pelosi. But I want to address, you know, David knows better than this, I mean, he is a constitutional lawyer. He knows that the findings of the court over the last hundred years have dealt with traditional marriage, marriage between a man and a woman. And the whole issue of civil rights that is drawn into this, you know, the court in Brown versus Board of Education and the civil rights cases in the ’50s and ’60s, were based upon constitutional amendments on the issue of racial equality which were adopted by the states. That hasn’t happened on same-sex marriage. This is an activist decision by a district-level court who is interjecting his view over the view of not only millions of Americans who have voted on this issue, but literally the history of the human race. So this is far from over. And we hope that sanity will reign when it does make its way to the United States Supreme Court. DICKERSON: Okay. Tony Perkins, thank you so much. David Boies, thank you for being with us. BOIES: Thank you.

Follow this link:
CBS’s Dickerson Questions ‘Claim’ That California Judge in Prop 8 Ruling Openly Gay

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

The 1 Party War Train – Democrats & Republicans Both Pushed For Iraq War

Posted on August 5, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

The 1 party republican/democrat war train pushed for the war in Iraq. Most people understand the republicans are warmongers, that much is obvious. What many falsely believe is that the democrats are peacemongers. Well let’s take a look at the history of how the Iraq War began. Fearmongering lies in both parties. http://www.conservativedeclaration.com/2010/08/the-1-party-war-train-democrats-r… added by: shanklinmike

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Celebrities, Hot Stuff

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Gay Couple Saves Life of Homophobic Neighbor | Gay Rights | Change.org

Posted on August 4, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Need any further proof that love always outlasts hate? Check out this story from Birmingham (United Kingdom)( http://www.sundaymercury.net/news/midlands-news/2010/08/02/birmingham-gay-couple… ), where a gay couple tormented by a neighbor's homophobic remarks — to the point where the neighbor was fined and served with a police order — end up saving his life from a deadly house fire. The story comes from the Sunday Mercury, which had a chance to speak to the gay couple, Bryn and James Tudor. Turns out they're a pretty famous gay couple. In 2005, they were the first gay couple in all of Birmingham to commit to each other in a civil partnership( http://www.queerty.com/birminghams-first-married-gays-james-and-brynn-tudor-save… ) — a pretty cool thing to put on your resume. But their marriage didn't please their neighbor, Baljit Koonar, none too much. For years, Koonar would taunt the gay couple with homophobic remarks, verbally harassing and bullying the Tudors to the point where they almost thought about packing up and moving to a different neighborhood. “We had put up with his verbal abuse for years – it affects you every day,” said Bryn Tudor. “[But we] did not want to give in to the bully.” For Koonar's sake, it's a good thing this couple didn't move. Because had James and Bryn not been there on the night that Koonar's house caught on fire, who knows how this story would have turned out. “I was sleeping when something woke me up at around 5am. I could taste smoke in the back of my mouth,” James Tudor told the Sunday Mercury. “I couldn’t see anything out of the front window, but when I went to the back there was smoke billowing out of next door and the family were on the roof.” And that's when this gay couple sprang into action. The couple, along with some help from other neighbors, grabbed a ladder and used it to get Koonar's family — his wife, their two kids, and a grandmother — off the roof of the burning house. According to James Tudor( http://www.queeried.co.uk/gay-couple-homophobic-abuse-rescue/ ), in the literal heat of the moment, everything became about how to save lives rather than the history of tension between these two houses. “Our thoughts weren’t about him. We wanted to get the kids down as soon as we could. You don’t think about anything that person has done, it’s just about the value of human life,” Tudor said. Kind of makes you think, right? The person you treat with homophobic, transphobic, racist, or sexist remarks today may just end up being the same person who one day saves your life. added by: toyotabedzrock

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Celebrities, Hot Stuff

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Watch Unnatural History Season 1 Episode 7 – Liberian Candidate

Posted on August 4, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Watch Unnatural History S1E7: Liberian Candidate The latest installment of Unnatural History which is entitled “Liberian Candidate” is the new TV series’ 7th episode of this 1st season that aired last 08/03/10 Tuesday at 8:00 PM on Cartoon Network. Watch Unnatural History 1x 7 (0107) Free Online Streaming Full Episodes Replay of the Latest Season and Video Clip Download Link: HERE

See the original post here:
Watch Unnatural History Season 1 Episode 7 – Liberian Candidate

→ Leave a comment

Posted in 1, Hollywood, Hot Stuff, TV, Unnatural History, V, Videos

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Obama Touts Fulfilled Iraq Pledge, But Withdrawal Deal Was Set Up by Bush

Posted on August 4, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

President Barack Obama told disabled veterans in Atlanta on Monday that he was fulfilling a campaign promise by ending U.S. combat operations in Iraq “on schedule.” But the timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops in Iraq was decided during the Bush administration with the signing of the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) by U.S. and Iraq officials on Nov. 16, 2008. The Iraqi parliament signed SOFA on Nov. 27, 2008. The agreement , which had been in negotiations since 2007, set a timetable calling for most U.S. troops to leave Iraqi towns and cities by June 30, 2009, with about 50,000 troops left in place until the final withdrawal of all U.S. military forces by Dec. 31, 2011. “Today’s vote affirms the growth of Iraq’s democracy and increasing ability to secure itself,” President George W. Bush said of the Iraqi parliamentary vote in a statement on Nov. 27, 2008. “Two years ago this day seemed unlikely – but the success of the surge and the courage of the Iraqi people set the conditions for these two agreements to be negotiated and approved by the Iraqi Parliament.” At the convention for disabled vets on Monday, many of whom served in Iraq, President Obama took credit for ending the war. “As a candidate for president, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end,” Obama said. “Shortly after taking office, I announced our new strategy for Iraq and for a transition to full Iraqi responsibility. “And I made it clear that by August 31st, 2010, America’s combat mission in Iraq would end,” Obama said . “And that is exactly what we are doing – as promised and on schedule.” On Feb. 27, 2009 — one month after taking office as president — Obama in a speech said, “Let me say this as plainly as I can. By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.” On his campaign Web site, Organizing for America, however, it states that Obama would end the “war responsibly” within 16 months of assuming office, or by roughly May 20, 2010. The Web site reads: “Barack Obama will work with military commanders on the ground in Iraq and in consultation with the Iraqi government to end the war safely and responsibly within 16 months.” A Dec. 2, 2008 article in the Christian Science Monitor reported that President-elect Obama told Iraqi officials he supported the SOFA. “The security pact was the first such agreement since the invasion to outline specific terms for U.S. involvement in Iraq,” the article stated. “It was also the first in the region to be publicly debated and approved. Iraqi leaders backed the agreement after reassurances from President-elect Obama that his administration would not try to change the accord negotiated by the Bush administration.” The “surge” by U.S. troops in Iraq was announced by President Bush in January 2007 and involved the deployment of more than 20,000 additional soldiers. By mid-June, the additional brigades were in place and the surge began, focusing on al-Qaeda, Sunni and Shia foes in Anbar, Baghdad, Babil and Diyala provinces. By September, U.S. commander Gen. David Petraeus was able to report to Congress that “the military objectives of the surge are, in large measure, being met.” At the time Bush announced the surge in January 2007, then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said, “I personally indicated that an escalation of troop levels in Iraq was a mistake and that we need a political accommodation rather than a military approach to the sectarian violence there.” Then, in January 2008, after Bush’s state of the Union Speech and when it was evident that the surge had been successful, Obama said , “Tonight we heard President Bush say that the surge in Iraq is working, when we know that’s just not true.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who also opposed the surge, issued a statement on Monday this week giving Obama credit for ending the war in Iraq. “America’s brave men and women in uniform have done everything that has been asked of them in the war in Iraq; they have performed excellently,” Pelosi said. “Soon, our nation will begin a new chapter in this effort, ending combat operations on the schedule President Obama promised.” But in February 2008, Pelosi said Bush’s military strategy in Iraq had failed. “The purpose of the surge was to create a secure time for the government of Iraq to make the political change to bring reconciliation to Iraq,” Pelosi said on CNN’s “Late Edition.” “They have not done that.” In Atlanta on Monday, Obama praised the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, which will finally end, according to the SOFA agreement, on Dec. 31, 2011. “Already, we have closed or turned over to Iraq hundreds of bases,” Obama said. “We’re moving out millions of pieces of equipment in one of the largest logistics operations that we’ve seen in decades. “By the end of this month, we’ll have brought more than 90,000 of our troops home from Iraq since I took office – more than 90,000 have come home,” Obama said. Crossposted at NB sister site CNSNews .

Originally posted here:
Obama Touts Fulfilled Iraq Pledge, But Withdrawal Deal Was Set Up by Bush

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

MSNBC Cherry Picks, Edits FNC Clips to Claim FNC Incited Sherrod Resignation & Ignored Her Side of Story

Posted on July 21, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

On Tuesday’s Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC, as host Maddow complained that a video clip of former USDA official Shirley Sherrod had been edited to make it appear she had talked about discriminating against white farmers in the present – a clip that led to her firing by the Obama administration – the MSNBC host not only incorrectly claimed that FNC coverage of the clip had helped incite her firing, but she also suggested that FNC would never show her side of the story even though, by that time Tuesday night, several FNC shows had already informed viewers of some of the details in Sherrod’s favor. And, in fact, Sherrod had already been forced to resign before The O’Reilly Factor became the first FNC show to report the story of her comments on Monday night, although host Bill O’Reilly at the time did not realize she had already been fired. Maddow’s show even chose to only present to her viewers clips from FNC that ran Monday and Tuesday morning which portrayed Sherrod’s comments as racist, without airing any of the clips from shows later Tuesday which showed FNC personalities conveying more of her side of the story. As Maddow filled in her viewers on some of the details in Sherrod’s favor, the MSNBC host used such phrases as “you would never know this if you got all your information from Fox News,” and, after explaining that Sherrod helped the white farmers in question: “That`s what happened – unless, of course, you watch Fox News.” FNC had already reported most of those same details hours earlier, and O’Reilly even informed his viewers Tuesday that Sherrod had declined an invitation to appear as a guest on his show, so liberal FNC analyst Alan Colmes appeared in her place. As for using clips to make it appear FNC reporting on Sherrod’s comments had come before her firing, Maddow used one clip of FNC’s O’Reilly on Monday calling for Sherrod’s resignation at a time when he had not yet received word that she had already resigned, and the MSNBC show also showed an edited clip of FNC’s Dana Perino substitute hosting for On the Record with Greta Van Susteren in which Perino had reported the story Monday night, omitting the fact that the FNC host had informed viewers moments later in the same segment that Sherrod had already resigned. Maddow used these first two clips, followed by a third of FNC’s Sean Hannity reporting that the resignation had happened – so that the MSNBC host could then drive home her claim that FNC had been “efficient” in getting rid of Sherrod. Maddow: “How`s that for efficient? How`s that for action? Fox News and conservative Web site uncover what they say is an admitted racist in the Obama administration and she is forced to resign immediately.” Maddow had also set up the three clips: “Within hours of that clip being posted online and billed as evidence of a racist within the Obama administration, Fox News, understanding their role in this delicate, well practiced dance, jumped all over it.” Below are transcripts of relevant portions of Tuesday’s Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC, followed by clips from FNC shows from Tuesday that refute Maddow’s claims that FNC would not report Sherrod’s side of the story: #From the Tuesday, July 20, Rachel Maddow Show: RACHEL MADDOW: There`s a lot to get to this hour. But we begin tonight with something that frankly we knew was coming, something we knew was inevitable after right-wing activists and Fox News destroyed the community organizing group ACORN last year with supposedly incriminating videotapes that really weren`t all that incriminating at all, that really weren`t incriminating at all. MADDOW, FROM A PREVIOUS SHOW, CLIP #1: This is not meant to excuse what ACORN has done wrong in the past, but the huge tide of negative publicity that followed these videotapes and the coverage they got on Fox wall-to-wall for months was bullpuckey. It was a dishonest, political stunt that bears no resemblance to journalism and no resemblance to the actual facts of what happened in those offices. But it worked. MADDOW, FROM A PREVIOUS SHOW, CLIP #2: This organization has been shut down. Means be damned, in the end, it worked. Who do you think is next on their list? MADDOW: Today, we got an answer to that question, which I hoped at the time was just a rhetorical one. The same attack that helped take down ACORN last fall with supposedly incriminating videotapes has now claimed a new victim. Next on their list, it turns out, is this woman, an Obama administration employee named Shirley Sherrod. Up until yesterday, Shirley Sherrod was an official with the United States Department of Agriculture, with the USDA. She served as the USDA`s world development director for the great state of Georgia. Ms. Sherrod resigned from that post yesterday, she claims under intense pressure from the Obama administration, pressure that was apparently brought to bear after this. The same conservative Web site that posted the supposedly incriminating but, in the end, just massively misleadingly edited ACORN tapes now has posted what it claims to be cold, hard evidence of racism, racism shown by an employee at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The evidence was a video clip of Shirley Sherrod speaking at an NAACP event this March. And at that event she recounts this story: SHIRLEY SHERROD, FORMER USDA OFFICIAL: The first time I was faced with having to help a white farmer save his farm, he took a long time talking, but he was trying to show me he was superior to me, I know what he was doing. … What he didn’t know while he was taking all that time trying to show me he was superior to me, was, I was trying to decide just how much help that I was going to give him. I was struggling with the fact that so many black people had lost their farmland, and here I was faced with having to help a white person save their land. So I didn`t give him the full force of what I could do.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

40 Bizarre Statistics That Reveal The Horrifying Truth About The Collapse Of The U.S. Economy

Posted on July 20, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Most Americans still appear to be operating under the delusion that the “recession” will soon pass and that things will get back to “normal” very soon. Unfortunately, that is not anywhere close to the truth. What are now witnessing are the early stages of the complete and total breakdown of the U.S. economic system. The U.S. government, state governments, local governments, businesses and American consumers have collectively piled up debt that is equivalent to approximately 360 percent of GDP. At no point during the Great Depression (or at any other time during our history) did we ever come close to such a figure. We have piled up the biggest mountain of debt that the world has ever seen, and now that gigantic debt bubble is beginning to pop. As this house of cards comes crashing down, the economic pain is going to become almost unimaginable. added by: Revelation1217

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Celebrities, Hot Stuff

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Did MSNBC Adjust Website in Response to Dallas Tea Party’s Criticism?

Posted on July 20, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Is MSNBC concerned about charges of a lack of racial diversity among its on-air staff? Perhaps the cable network is realizing that its glass house is increasingly at risk of shattering from all the stones it keeps hurling at the allegedly-racist Tea Party movement. The folks at Inside Cable News noticed a slight change in the header at the MSNBC TV homepage. See if you can spot it in the picture at right. It shouldn’t be that hard; the folks at the cable network put Tamron Hall front and center in a bright pink shirt ( click here for a larger image of the new header). Did MSNBC add Hall in an effort to satiate critics who have pointed out the lack of racial diversity on the cable network? Though ICN notes the comical video produced by the Dallas Tea Party, the Congressional Black Caucus has also chided MSNBC for its lily-white staff. Many such critiques were directly aimed at Keith Olbermann, who suggested that Tea Party protesters were racist because only white people attended their rallies. “Where are they?” asked an overdramatic Olbermann. The Dallas Tea Party countered with its own video noting the on-air whiteness of NBC’s TV holdings. Other conservative commentators, such as blogger Broliath , created their own videos to a similar effect, noting that even the guests on “Countdown” were overwhelmingly white. And as mentioned above, even the Congressional Black Caucus weighed in . According to Main Justice, CBC member Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, asked NBC president Jeff Zucker why there wasn’t “any black programming on NBC.” She added: “Is there some assumption that black programming is not profitable?” But is Hall’s conspicuous presence in the new website header — which was not present as late as April —  a response to MSNBC’s critics? Well, Zucker did tell Jackson Lee that “diversity was one of his strategic goals and that the company was trying to do better.” Furthermore, as ICN notes: …Hall’s inclusion with the “Heavy Hitters” of MSNBC is a bit strange. MSNBC has never before bothered to put any of its M-FR dayside news talent in with the ones that get all the attention. It’s not like Hall’s two hours are fundamentally different in either format or subject matter from what airs at 10, 12, or 3pm ET aside from the fact that they still have segments from inside the control room. So the question arises: Why put Hall up front and center, literally center in this case, with a picture that is fundamentally different from the subdued wardrobe theme that everyone else is sporting (which just about guarantees that Hall is the one you’re going to notice first because her picture sticks out so)? This is, after all, the same cable network whose on-air staff confused Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton .

Read more here:
Did MSNBC Adjust Website in Response to Dallas Tea Party’s Criticism?

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Dylan Ratigan Shouts Down Conservative Guest for Objecting to Liberal Dogma

Posted on July 20, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

On his July 20 afternoon program, Dylan Ratigan shouted down the Washington Examiner’s J.P. Freire for challenging the MSNBC host’s liberal orthodoxy and accusing him of giving more air time to the liberal panelist appearing opposite him. Eschewing any sense of balanced reporting, Ratigan thundered: “I said I’m in charge of the show. I decide who I’ll talk to. I might spend the entire time talking to Jonathan Capehart and not talk to you at all. And then you can choose never to come on my show again.” “I’m sorry, Jonathan was taking up a lot of my time earlier in the segment,” explained Freire. “Look at the amount of time he’s been talking and the amount of time I was talking.” Discussing institutionalized racism in America, Freire attempted to argue that a “government monopoly on education” hinders the ability of ethnic minorities to succeed, but the liberal agitator was only interested in Washington Post editorial writer Jonathan Capehart’s liberal spin on the issue and instructed Freire to “please be quiet” before berating him. “Who’s hosts the show, J.P.?” asked Ratigan. “Just because you’re on my show doesn’t mean you get as much time as you decide you want. Do you understand that?” Freire fired back: “What I’ll do is I’ll interrupt if I have something to say.”              “Right and I’ll tell you to be quiet if someone else is speaking,” sputtered Ratigan, who seemed all to eager to assert his authority with a conservative guest while defending the right of the liberal guest to speak freely. A transcript of the relevant portion of the segment can be found below: MSNBC Dylan Ratigan July 20, 2010 4:19 P.M. E.S.T. DYLAN RATIGAN: I’m not saying there’s some grand racist in the sky who is doing that. J.P. FREIRE, Washington Examiner associate editor: But it’s somehow systematic? RATIGAN: It’s systematic in that the way our education resources are distributed, the way our law enforcement practice is distributed, the way our populations are distributed, these things yield themselves out. That is not good for America, period. So how do you deal with that? FREIRE: Well look, I think that maybe the expectation is that a conservative is going to go on the air and say everything is hunky-dory. RATIGAN: Hold on, J.P. I like you, I like you, I like you, I’m not jumping to any conclusions about you, I’m taking your words at face value. I expect you’ll do the same with me. I want you to pretend you’re not on MSNBC; I want you to pretend you’re talking to your friends Dylan and Jonathan. Okay, can you do that? FREIRE: Yeah sure, absolutely. Yo Dylan and John, I was thinking today that the idea that there are so many systems in place that do make it so difficult for people that are underprivileged to succeed in this country is because we constantly put in place more and more systems and that more people are saying “hey, if we fiddle with these systems, maybe it will give us the right output.” The best way to allow people to rise up is by getting out of the way. It’s not that we’ve made it easier for white people to get along – RATIGAN: So how are we getting out of the way if we have 19,000 different school districts, some of which are incredibly well capitalized and can yield the finest education in the history of the world, and the vast majority of which have no money – FREIRE: Easy, a government monopoly on education. RATIGAN: Hold on a second. Say that again. FREIRE: A government monopoly on education is precisely how we make it more difficult for blacks and Latinos and many other ethnic groups and the poor to be able to rise up. I mean, that is how we get in the way. If we really want to – RATIGAN: So you’re saying the fact that rich people can take all of their kids out of the schools in the cities – FREIRE: Oh, heavens… RATIGAN: and leave ghetto schools uptown here in New York. No, not “oh heavens” J.P., I’ve lived in New York for almost twenty years, I have many friends who have children here, I have many friends who have grown up here and I can tell you the rich ones went to private schools and the poor ones didn’t and the more, anyway. You get the last word here, Jonathan. How do you view the systematic aspect of this? JONATHAN CAPEHART, Washington Post: Look, the systematic aspects, you laid them out, your graphics show the wide disparities there. My big concern is we spend a lot of time hurling accusations of racism and things like that and we allow that to get in way of having a really meaningful, deep conversation – FREIRE: A very difficult conversation. RATIGAN: J.P. please be quiet. FREIRE: I’m sorry, Jonathan was taking up a lot of my time earlier in the segment. RATIGAN: J.P., you know what? I want you to be part of this, I really really do. FREIRE: No, Jonathan has blockaded my entire part. RATIGAN: J.P., you’re not behaving in a way that’s constructive and I don’t know why that is but I do appreciate. FREIRE: Look at the amount of time he’s been talking and the amount of time I was talking. RATIGAN: Who’s hosts the show, J.P.? FREIRE: I’m just saying. RATIGAN: Who’s hosts the show, J.P.? FREIRE: If you’re saying it’s equal time, it should be equal time. RATIGAN: Did I say that? I said I’m in charge of the show. I decide who I’ll talk to. I might spend the entire time talking to Jonathan Capehart and not talk to you at all. And then you can choose never to come on my show again. FREIRE: I would never do that, I love being on your show. RATIGAN: Just because you’re on my show doesn’t mean you get as much time as you decide you want. Do you understand that? FREIRE: What I’ll do is I’ll interrupt if I have something to say. RATIGAN: Right and I’ll tell you to be quiet if someone else is speaking. FREIRE: Okay. RATIGAN: Coming up, I was concerned that might happen. –Alex Fitzsimmons is a News Analysis intern at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.

Read more from the original source:
Dylan Ratigan Shouts Down Conservative Guest for Objecting to Liberal Dogma

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , ,