Rachel Maddow's career is over. At least that's what Larry Klayman -- the lawyer for controversial preacher Bradlee Dean, and founder of Freedom Watch -- said will come of a lawsuit filed against Maddow and MSNBC.
Bradlee Dean, a conservative preacher who is known for his incendiary, anti-homosexual rehetoric, and his ministry are seeking damages in excess of $50 million from Maddow and MSNBC for slander and false light.
After announcing the lawsuit Wednesday in New York, Dean and Klayman spoke by phone to the Michele Tafoya Show show on CBS radio.
At issue are comments Dean made on his own radio show last spring:
"Muslims are calling for the executions of homosexuals in America. This just shows you they themselves are upholding the laws that are even in the Bible of the Judeo-Christian God, but they seem to be more moral than even the American Christians do, because these people are livid about enforcing their laws. They know homosexuality is an abomination ... If America won't enforce the laws, God will raise up a foreign enemy to do just that."
Maddow, the lawsuit says, took those comments and ran with them, claiming that Dean was essentially advocating killing homosexuals. Dean has issued a statement declaring his firm opposition to violence toward gays.
And since Dean has been linked to Rep. Michele Bachmann -- the two have appeared at fundraisers together -- Klayman claims MSNBC and Maddow are trying to sabotage Bachmann's presidential campaign, by way of Dean.
Maddow is "trying to destroy Bradlee Dean, trying to destroy Bachmann," Klayman said, adding that Maddow's remarks were the "most outrageous statement I've heard in my entire life, and I've lived a bit here."
Tafoya, pressing Dean a bit on his position on homosexuality, asked him if he indeed believes it is an "abomination."
"If you're asking if I'm in agreement with the word of God, then yes I am," Dean responded.
Maddow's remarks have harmed both Dean's reputation and finances, Klayman said. "You can't just say whatever you want," he said. "This is going to cost MSNBC hundreds of millions of dollars and will probably end the career of Rachel Maddow."
Listen to the audio:
h/t City Pages
Oklahoma City, July 19, 2011: As I stopped for gas between Tulsa and Oklahoma City, on the counter of the convenience store was a copy of the Oklahoman newspaper. Other newspapers reported that the U.S. was in the midst of a budget battle with budget plans ranging from a stop-gap measure to reduce the debt by [...]Related posts:
Pity he is no longer in Tunisia for this moment. Al Jazeera:
A Tunisian court has sentenced ousted President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, his daughter and son-in-law in absentia, to serve prison terms and to pay a collective $100m in damages.
The court, on Thursday, found the trio guilty of corruption in property deals. A nephew of Ben Ali was also convicted of drug charges in the proceedings.
Ben Ali has already been convicted in absentia twice in Tunisian courts in recent weeks, for embezzlement and gun and drug smuggling.
He fled to Saudi Arabia in January after a popular uprising against his autocratic, 23-year rule that sparked revolts around the Arab world.
Corruption in Ben Ali's inner circle was one of the drivers of anger at his regime that fueled the protests earlier this year.
In a sense I've made the same film over and over again.
In all of them I've asked, "Who are we as Americans?"
Born July 29, 1953
Read The Full Article:
This really isn’t that hard. There’s a reason that Americans feel frustrated.[...]
Read The Full Article:
Source: Advanced Currency Markets | G10 Advancers and Decliners vs USD JPY 0.32 CHF 0.27 GBP -0.04 EUR -0.16 The yen and Swiss franc strengthened toward records against the dollar with USDCHF trading at 0.7997 after U.S. lawmakers delayed a vote on a plan to raise the debt limit to avert a default, boosting demand for refuge currencies. The franc extended its sixth monthly gain, the longest in 17 years, after U.S. Representative Kevin McCarthy said yesterday that there would be no House vote that day….
Read More …
Muse in the MorningTime for a break from poetry...in order to create some art.She might be without country, without nation, but inside her there was still a being that could exist and be free, that could simply say I am without adding a this, or a that,[...]
Read The Full Article:
The only leverage that Democrats hold, the only thing they have that Republicans want, is the coming expiration of the Bush tax cuts. That was true at the end of 2010, when they extended them for two years and got some more, mostly tax-side, stimulus as a result. It's true at the end of 2012, when the hope is, if we avoid a default-caused depression, the economy will be on stronger footing. So there's a belief that this leverage can be converted into a bold tax reform that would end loopholes and create a fairer tax code.
Except that the President has been trying to give away the Bush tax cuts throughout the negotiations. He's not interested in using that leverage; he doesn't want the fight. He would rather get the relatively meager revenue gains from canceling the tax cuts above $250,000 of income and be done. This is because of a stupid campaign promise that has put tax policy in a straightjacket.
As Matt Yglesias shows with the above chart, the benefits of the so-called "middle class" Bush tax cuts actually go disproportionately to the rich. We have marginal tax rates in this country, so the rich feel all the benefits on the cuts in the smaller tax brackets. These are not well-designed policies, and so just extending them rather than letting them expire and writing a new set of better-distributed policies misses a big opportunity. Anyway, a policy that allows low taxes for people making not enough to live but practically no services for them doesn't really help them out.
The truth is that, if we had the same distributional impact in tax policy at the individual and corporate level that we did in the 1960s, we wouldn't have a budget deficit. But Democrats are afraid to say that. They're afraid to get into any argument about taxes for fear that they cannot win. And as a result, poorly-designed tax policies that benefit the rich - even when at a headline level they're supposed to benefit the poor - predominate.
In keeping with our current preoccupation with taxes, the deficit and spending, I thought I would run an address President Franklin Roosevelt gave while campaigning for re-election in 1936.
Seems the subject of taxes has been with us for a very-very long time. And it also seems the ones doing the most complaining haven't changed very much in the past 200 or so years.
Comforting, I suppose. But you'd think by now it would get a little tired.
In 1936 though, FDR had a few choice words nestled in what has become a timeless address.
President Roosevelt: "In 1776 the fight was for Democracy in Taxation. In 1936 there is still the fight. Mister Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said 'taxes are the prices we pay for civilized society'. One sure way to determine the social conscience of a government is to examine the way taxes are collected and how they are spent. And one sure way to determine the social conscience of an individual is to get his tax reaction. Taxes, after all are the dues we pay for the privilege of membership in an organized society. And as society becomes more civilized government, national and state and local, is called on to assume more obligations to its citizens. The privileges of membership in a civilized society are vastly increased in modern times. But I am afraid we still have many who still do not recognize their advantages and want to avoid paying their dues."
Tax breaks for the wealthy were a concept well in place by the time Hoover was President.
FDR: "To divide fairly among the people the obligation to pay for these benefits has been a major part of our struggle to maintain Democracy in America. Ever since 1776, that struggle has been between two forces; on the one hand there has been a vast majority of citizens who believe the benefits of democracy should be extended and who are willing to pay their fair share to extend them. And on the other hand, there has been a small but powerful group which has fought the extension of these benefits because they did not want to pay a fair share of their cost. That was the lineup in seventeen hundred and seventy-six and it's the lineup today. And I am confident that once more, in nineteen thirty-six democracy in taxation will win. Here is my principle, and I think it's yours too; Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle."
So hearing this now and knowing it was from the dim-distant past of 1936, it makes the current situation and posturing that much more absurd. Unfortunately if it were only absurd it would be laughed off. But it has become deadly serious business in the ensuing years.
And I keep reminding myself that Fair is a place in Pomona California where people get together once a year and show cows.
Liberals know the middle class is the foundation of American Greatness, and only an economy that works for all will protect that foundation.
Read The Full Article:
I'm reminded of the old joke:
Person 1: How do you keep an idiot in suspense?
Person 2: I don't know. How?
Person 1: I'll tell you tomorrow.
Sound like your world? We all knew Boehner didn't have the votes. We knew it weeks ago. We knew it when Oreo posted the list yesterday afternoon. And yet we all checked our phones (maybe this explains it), checked the internet, watched the tv. Could he whip them?
So what happens now? There are some structural issues in the Senate in terms of how long it takes to call a vote, get cloture, live through the waiting times. And the ONLY thing that gets through the House is a bill with the support of the full Democratic caucus (or close to it) plus 20 - 30 Republican votes.
Here are the choices as I see them:
Option A: Reid's bill through the Senate, approved predominantly by Democrats in the House. Signed by Obama, debt ceiling rises through the end of 2012.
Option B: Option A PLUS the Democrats in the House put forth a bunch of revenue bills, which pass.
Option C: Boehner actually does whip the votes, to goes to the Senate and passes. (I had to put this in, but don't vote for it, it's not actually going to happen. If you do vote for this one in the poll, please use the comments to explain how those votes get whipped.)
Option D: McConnell bill passes the Senate and the House.
Option E: Obama invokes the 14th.
Option F: An extension to borrow for 10 - 30 days passes, Obama signs, and "how do you keep an idiot in suspense?" continues.
Option G: We run out of money on 2 August .
Option H: The math was wrong. We run out of money on 10 August.
More after the jump.
The bottom line is that the teabag contingent has won a "victory" in that they wanted to destroy the government, eviscerate all that government does except for protecting gun rights, fielding a military, and working towards killing off all human rights, civil rights, women's rights, and you know the rest.
The question is: how do all those voters feel about what they chose? Are they so stupid that they believe default is okay? THAT stupid?
In any event, my personal belief is that Obama is obligated to invoke the 14th. It doesn't appear that there is anyone with standing to sue him. Some might try, but like the birther suits, they won't get anywhere. Impeachment? Unlikely, but honestly not a big deal as there's 0% chance he gets convicted in the Senate. Obama cares about how he is remembered in history, and if he invokes on Sunday afternoon, the markets rally on Monday, and we move forward to the shared sacrifice deal. If Obama does NOT invoke the 14th, he is the American president that let America default after the petulant children in Congress couldn't get anything done. Suddenly, he's got coattails again. He comes off as the last sane man standing.
I am cognizant, however, that crash and burn is a real option. It was why back in March I was rooting for an April shutdown of the government so that the masses would see what it meant, and would have been more willing to push their congressmen to pass a debt ceiling increase. A little pain then would have avoided this now.
It was all fine and good until his nutty ideas became public. Now they're running away from him. Regardless of what the party sources say now, it's clear that his way of thinking was perfectly acceptable behind closed doors.
Ministers yesterday disowned controversial ideas floated by David Cameron's strategy guru, including the scrapping of maternity leave and consumer rights and the closure of jobcentres.
Steve Hilton came under fire after it emerged that he had put forward numerous proposals to boost Britain's fragile recovery. His friends blamed the disclosure on obstructive civil servants who do not admire his free-thinking approach to policy.
The 42-year-old former advertising man, who cycles to work and walks around Downing Street in a T-shirt and socks, is seen as one of Mr Cameron's closest two advisers ? the other being the Chancellor, George Osborne. The Prime Minister admires Mr Hilton's original thinking although he often backs Mr Osborne when the two men clash. Insiders say Mr Hilton has a "scattergun" approach to policy ideas, many of which do not get off the ground. The suggestions leaked yesterday look certain to join the list.