Filed under: Erin Brockovich , Celebrity Justice The real Erin Brockovich (aka not Julia Roberts ) may have a tough time lawyering her way out of this one — according to the State of California, the famed corporation-destroyer owes $2,600 in back taxes. According to the documents, obtained by TMZ,… Read more
Read more:
Erin Brockovich — 2,600 New Problems with California
Posted in Celebrities, Gossip, Hot Stuff
Tagged aka-not, bennyhollywood, brockovich, california, documents, julia, state, the-documents, the-famed, TMZ, tough-time, way-out
The State Department classifies it as such . Apparently Imam Dawoud Kringle is of a different mind. What do you think of Andy McCarthy’s explanation for this Imam’s non-response? Is the definition of terrorism the real issue here?
View post:
Open Thread: Another GZ Mosque Supporter Refuses to Call Hamas a Terrorist Group
Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News
Tagged america, bennyhollywood, culture/society, dawoud, dawoud-kringle, imam, muslim, News, Obama, open thread, real-issue, stars, state, wife
You ee-vil Americans. You haven’t contributed enough to Pakistani flood relief. And now you’ve been busted by Andrea Mitchell, who knows why you’ve been so miserly. It’s prejudice. Prejudice I tell ya! View video here if not visible at right. Mitchell teased her prejudiced-Americans theory at the top of her MSNBC show this afternoon, then trotted it out while talking with Ann Curry, who is in Pakistan. How over the top was Andrea? Even fellow lib Curry had to gently talk Mitchell down, suggesting there was another very good reason why Americans would be cautious about sending money to Pakistan . . . ANDREA MITCHELL: Even before the president waded into that mosque controversy, a new poll shows a growing number of Americans wrongly believe that President Obama is a Muslim. This as prejudice against Muslims in America might be contributing to a charity gap toward flood victims in Pakistan. And a bit later, while speaking with Ann Curry . . . MITCHELL: We’ve been looking at incredible pictures, Ann, while you’ve been talking about this, of this flooding. Secretary Clinton, the State Department, has announced, is going to be announcing a Pakistan relief fund, and the hope I’m told is that that will somehow validate it for Americans. The incredible numbers are, in the early days of this disaster, only $50,000 was texted in for the Red Cross and other relief organizations to the State Department in answer to their appeal, in comparison to $34 million after the disaster in Haiti, which tells you that the prejudice against Pakistan is pretty profound. ANN CURRY: Well, I think that’s right. I think that part of that may also be that Americans, and people all around the world, given the state of the world today, are concerned that money given to these flood victims in Pakistan could end up in the hands of extremists , like the Taliban. Getting schooled on hard-nosed realpolitik by Ann Curry? Ouch! Let’s summarize Andrea’s view of her compatriots: Americans are a prejudiced lot, as proved by the fact that we haven’t donated nearly as much to Pakistan as we did to . . . the overwhelmingly black population of Haiti. Got it.
See the rest here:
Andrea Mitchell Blames American ‘Prejudice’ For Paucity Of Donations To Pakistan
Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News
Tagged america, bennyhollywood, clinton, compatriots, curry, disaster, given-the-state, Hollywood, pakistan, prejudice, state, TMZ, trotted-it-out, world
Want to see part of the brilliant strategy Minnesota Republicans have cooked up for November? Here’s a video the state GOP made that shows how totally hot conservative babes are, and how nasty (and hairy) liberal women are. More
Posted in Celebrities, Gossip, Hot Stuff, TV
Tagged brilliant, conservatives, Gawker, Hollywood, none-solid, randy brown, right-wing, smokin, state, TMZ, twitter celeb
What’s the best way to address rising debt and deficits? According to one liberal blogger, it’s not cutting spending, but taxing churches, that will solve America’s financial woes. “[Americans] should have the right to support any institution they feel supports their views,” William K. Wolfrum wrote on Alan Colmes’s Liberaland blog Aug. 17. “But that does not mean the State should reimburse people or churches for their beliefs.” He argued that because churches take “political stands” – opposing gay marriage or abortion, for example – they should not enjoy tax-exempt status. But, to be fair, Wolfrum appears to show no favoritism. “The most important aspect of removing tax-exempt status from churches or religious entities is that it must be all-encompassing,” he wrote. “Whether you believe a certain religion is ‘true’ or ‘false’ makes no difference. Scientology should be taxes, as should Islam. The Catholic church should be taxes, as should synagogues. There are no favorites. Whether you believe in L. Ron Hubbard, Jesus, a tree, Mother Earth or Allah, it is time for the tax man to cometh.” Wolfrum brushed aside the idea that churches provide charity services for the needy, saying such work is done “for a singular purpose – to encourage people to follow their beliefs. The more that follow those beliefs, the more money is taken in by the church or religious entity.” He complained that the “Tax God” movement would never succeed “in a nation so riddled with religion.” Even so, Wolfrum concluded, “If America is serious about reigning in its ballooning debt, taxing churches needs to be put on the table. God has gotten a free ride long enough in the United States, and it’s hurting the one true religion in America – Capitalism.”
Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News
Tagged allah, america, beliefs, culture-links, earth, earth-or-allah, hurting-the-one, mean-the-state, mother-earth, News, provide-charity, religion, state, TMZ
There’s “flying first-class” rich. And then there’s “I own the damn airplane” rich. For three decades, photographer Nick Gleis has been capturing the spaceship-like interiors of planes owned by the second category—from arms dealers to heads of state. More
Posted in Celebrities, Gossip, Hot Stuff, TV
Tagged adnan khashoggi, bennyhollywood, inside, none-solid, private-planes, state, three-decades, tweet
http://www.queerty.com/did-some-of-new-jerseys-supreme-court-justices-refuse-gay… The New Jersey Supreme Court doesn't give interviews, so no one can ask whether the tribunal balked on the gay marriage issue because it was afraid of the reaction of Gov. Chris Christie. “There won't be any comment,” says Winnie Comfort, a spokeswoman for the court. “Of course, people are free to speculate. There is nothing we can do about that.” Comfort made the comments in response to remarks by legislators who raised the issue of whether the court — or, at least, three members — might have been afraid to touch the gay marriage case because Christie can remove them by appointing other justices. The way he did to Justice John Wallace, the court's only African-American. Both state Sen. Raymond Lesniak (D-Union) and Assemblyman John D. McKeon (D-Essex) told The Star-Ledger's Matt Friedman the decision raised the question of whether Wallace's ouster led three non-permanent court members to duck the issue. Those members — Chief Justice Stuart Rabner and Justices Roberto Rivera-Soto and Helen Hoens — voted against a motion to have the court immediately revisit its earlier decision in the Lewis vs. Harris case that, in 2006 ruled the Legislature must provide marriage-like rights to same-sex couples. The court then left the details up to lawmakers and they decided to create “civil unions” rather than extend marriages to gays and lesbians. The three judges who don't have to worry about reappointment — Justices Virginia Long, Jaynee LaVecchia, and Barry Albin dissented from the order. They wanted arguments on the motion to go forward. Coincidence? “I think the three justices who voted against the motion looked over their shoulders and saw Chris Christie,” says Frank Askin, a Rutgers Law School professor and constitutional scholar in Newark. “There is no question in my mind that fear of what the Governor would do played a part in that decision.” Michael Drewniak, Christie's spokesman, declined to answer questions about the decision. The state court action contrasts with the robust ruling handed down by federal Judge Vaughn Walker who overturned a California plebiscite — Proposition 8 — banning gay marriages. Forget worrying about a governor, Walker rejected the will of the state's voters because, he ruled, Proposition 8 “violates the due process and equal protection rights” of gays seeking to marry. Walker's decision chews through the arguments of opponents of gay marriage, refuting contentions gay marriages are unstable and that children raised by gay parents do less well than kids from heterosexual households. He also makes it obvious supporters of Proposition 8 were trying to inject their religious views into law. “The evidence presented at trial,” Walker wrote, “fatally undermines the premises underlying proponents' proffered rationales for Proposition 8.” New Jersey once had a supreme court willing to render significant decisions. Under chiefs like Joseph Weintraub, Richard Hughes, Robert Wilentz, James Zazzali and Deborah Poritz, the state's highest court was a national leader in individual rights. It is often in state courts that individual rights are most effectively protected. New Jersey's decisions on school funding and fair housing — also now endangered — went far beyond what the federal courts would do. Even Walker's decision, for all the hype it has generated, could set back the cause. Rutgers Law Professor Carlos Bell, an expert on gay marriage, explains it could lead to an adverse decision by a conservative U.S. Supreme Court: “That is why most of the other same-sex marriage lawsuits (including New Jersey's Lewis v. Harris) have been brought in state courts alleging violations of state constitutions. When a case is decided on state constitutional grounds, it cannot be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. “It is likely the court will hear the Proposition 8 case. The upside for gay people of a favorable decision is tremendous: It would mean same-sex couples all over the country would have to be afforded the opportunity to marry. But the downside is also great: It would mean a Supreme Court decision, which would likely stay on the books for a long time, holding gay people are not entitled to marry under the federal constitution.” Maybe too much has been read into the state court action. Even Steve Goldstein, the chairman of Garden State Equality, the state's leading proponent of gay rights, says “it's not a dooms-day scenario — we'll get our day in court.” Perhaps. But a lot is at stake, and one has to wonder — do the three judges up for reappointment really think Christie will keep them no matter what they do? This looks more like an opportunity to make history rather than curry favor. added by: toyotabedzrock
Posted in Celebrities, Hot Stuff
Tagged arguments, california, current, governor, Hollywood, House, mind, News, proposition, state, TMZ
Police in southwest Oregon are frustrated by a growing number of small marijuana gardens popping up in backyards. The Mail Tribune reports that the hidden gardens are growing cannabis to supply more than 7,000 people in the area who have marijuana cards under the state's Medical Marijuana Act. http://www.mycentraloregon.com/news/state/ap/161033/Booming-marijuana-gardens-in… added by: JackHerer
Posted in Celebrities, Hot Stuff
Tagged bennyhollywood, current, gardens-popping, medical, News, oregon, state, the-hidden, tribune, under-the-state
As the anchor of MSNBC’s noon news hour, Contessa Brewer could not openly advocate for supporters of gay marriage – but she definitely seemed to give generous credence to their views on Thursday and Friday. Furthermore, she made snide comments about opponents of same-sex marriage, providing an opposition to their arguments but not seriously questioning proponents of same-sex marriage. Brewer obviously has strong views on this particular issue, and as a news anchor seems to have trouble keeping her personal opinions out of her news desk duties. In the little time allotted during each show to the same-sex marriage debate, Brewer hosted three pro same-sex marriage guests and none from the opposition. On Thursday, her guest was a retired female Presbyterian minister who is facing a church trial for conducting multiple gay marriages, having already been acquitted in 2008 before the Presbyterian Church (USA) Supreme Judicial Council. On Friday, Brewer hosted the two plaintiffs of the recent Proposition 8 court case, Jeff Zarrillo and Paul Katami – a homosexual couple hoping to marry soon. Brewer also marginalized the arguments of same-sex marriage opponents with snide remarks and loaded questions. “Opponents of same-sex marriage often argue it undermines the institution, and the family,” she remarked on her Thursday news hour. “So my big question today: Isn’t divorce a bigger threat to marriage in America?” When one of her viewers who opposes gary marriage wrote in that having two same-sex parents would “mess up the child development for life,” Brewer cynically quipped “I guess he hasn’t seen what happens with step-families integrating. Typically you have two dads and two moms.” On Friday, Brewer seemed to be pushing for a quick end to the stay on same-sex marriages in California, apparently using one of the Left’s favorite arguments in equating the current legal battles with the civil rights struggles of the 1960’s. “You know, those against gay marriage are arguing the worst that happens if the state is kept in place is that same-sex couples will have to wait longer for their nuptials,” she summarized. “So my big question today: Isn’t justice delayed justice denied?” she asked, quoting the mantra of the civil rights movement. A transcript of both segments, which aired on August 12 and 13, is as follows: MSNBC NEWS HOUR 8/12/10 12:00 CONTESSA BREWER, MSNBC anchor: A Presbyterian minister in [California] is facing charges from her own church. The authorities believe she violated the church rules by presiding over the weddings of gay couples. Her trial begins later this month in Napa, California, and Rev. Jane Spahr joins me now. Reverend, it’s good to talk to you today. Rev. JANE SPAHR: Thank you, Contessa. Great to be here. BREWER: You have been through this before in 2008, when you were acquitted, I understand, from marrying a lesbian couple. So what’s this renewed fight about in the Presbyterian church? SPAHR: Well the renewed fight is really about all these marriages that I did with so many of my friends who – they’re legal. They were from those dates from June 17th to November 4th in which the state has said “Yes, all these are legal.” So it’s been an amazing time to be able to marry so many of my wonderful friends. BREWER: What’s the official stance of the Presbyterian Church on same-sex marriage? SPAHR: Well there really isn’t a stance yet, there hasn’t been a ruling on that, so what it is, I think for me, is, as pastors, we should be able to marry the people who come to us, and that is, for me, I take over a year to meet with couples, to work with them, to talk with them about their love, and it’s been an amazing time to be able to do that. So what I say to people, “It doesn’t matter what your sexual orientation is. It matters to me that you have a healthy, just, loving, mutual relationship. So that’s why I meet with couples. So I say “It doesn’t matter to me.” What matters to me is that the church could be there to help people have the healthiest, most loving relationships. BREWER: Given your stand on this, and given that you have been a long-time advocate on behalf of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities, do you think that you’re a good fit with the Presbyterian Church? SPAHR: Well I think every church has the opportunity to become open and welcoming, to really follow the founder of our Church, which said, “You all come, and be, and be who you are, and love who you are.” When people love who they are, then they can be free to serve in such a healthy and wonderful way. So I think it’s time for the churches to say “Welcome home.” BREWER: But given how many people base their opposition to gay rights on religious or moral principles, what would you say to them, and what would you expect to happen in this trial? Again, it’s a church trial, coming up later this month. SPAHR: Well again, people will be able to hear the stories of some 11 couples, be able to hear about their love, and to be able to know that we too are people of faith. We too are faithful people. We too care. My friends, Sarah and Sherry, the first couple that was ever named, I’ve been with them through all the things they’re bearing, their fathers, being with them to see their daughters raised, so it’s for people to see us as they really are. (…) 12:05 BREWER: Opponents of same-sex marriage often argue it undermines the institution, and the family. So my big question today: Isn’t divorce a bigger threat to marriage in America? (…) 12:52 BREWER: And Terrance thinks differently. He says “I believe if a child is raised around two fathers or two mothers that will mess up the child development for life.” I guess he hasn’t seen what happens with step-families integrating. Typically you have two dads and two moms. MSNBC NEWS HOUR 8/13/10 12:00 CONTESSA BREWER: In the meantime, good Friday the 13th. I’m Contessa Brewer, covering the big news, coast to coast. And on the West Coast, a massive tug-of-war is erupting over the gay marriage fight in California. Opponents want a federal appeals court to act now, before a hold on those weddings expires. …there will be mass confusion about whether the couples are indeed legally married. The judge’s decision to hold off ’till next week not going over well with some. (Video Clip) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We’ve been here for two hours this morning, and we’ve watched so many straight people walk in and get married in front of us. It’s so “in your face,” that once again, “no you can’t.” (End Video Clip) (…) 12:01 BREWER: You know, those against gay marriage are arguing the worst that happens if the state is kept in place is that same-sex couples will have to wait longer for their nuptials. So my big question today: Isn’t justice delayed justice denied? (…) 12:02 BREWER: Joining me now, Paul Katami, Jeff Zurrillo. They are the plaintiffs in the case to overturn Proposition 8. Gentlemen, good to see you. Let me ask you that question. Do you think justice delayed is justice denied? JEFF ZARRILLO: Martin Luther King said it very well, in his letters to Birmingham, justice delayed is justice denied, and that’s exactly what’s happening here. BREWER: Do you have – do you think optimistic feelings about what happens now with the appeals court? Paul, weigh in. PAUL KATAMI: We’re absolutely optimistic. We know that we put on a fair and balanced court case. We won on the merits of that case, so now the law is on our side. We know that history is on our side, so it’s just a matter of getting to that finish line and we’re very confident we’ll get there. BREWER: You know, it’s interesting that the opponents who have filed the suit, guys, say that the judge’s decision that said voters made this Proposition 8 based on anti-gay morality, they said the judge’s statement was cruel because the people of California have actually enacted into law some of the nation’s most sweeping, most progressive protections of gays and lesbians. Do you feel protected in California? ZARRILLO: It’s really not about feeling protected as much as it is about separate, yet unequal, and that’s what we are, we are a separate yet unequal category. We are second-class citizens in the state of California. And what we really are looking for is just our equal rights, just like every other American is afforded at birth, according to our Constitution. KATAMI: I think it’s important to remember also that we’re not trying to create a new law or import a law into our Constitution. This was a law that was found in our Constitution, and so we are just trying to reiterate that that law belongs to us fundamentally, so it’s important to remember that our Constitution actually has this law in it. And we’re just wanting it to be applied to us. BREWER: Alright, gentlemen. Jeff, Paul, thank you both. I appreciate your time.
See original here:
For Two Days in a Row, MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer Presents a One-Sided Debate on Gay Marriage
Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News
Tagged america, arguments, california, constitution, culture/society, Love, msnbc live, News, People, proposition, Sex, state, thursday, usa, video
Breaking Sports Video
Pac-12 NCAA Sports
Justin Bieber Fan Site Breaking News
