« Lindsey Gramnesty in Bed With George Soros | Main | Happy Birthday, USMC »

Oh Van, there just isn't time to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the fall of Communism when OPRAH! is waiting on the red phone... ;)

PBO was far too busy to attend the Commemoration in Berlin. According to the schedule had three short morning briefings and a long afternoon spent snoozing in the Rose Garden.

Slimeball lawyer digs up, plays underage sex tape to coerce Carrie Prejan to settle

So she makes a private tape? No big deal, that's a private matter.

So she sends a private tape to a boyfriend? No big deal, that's a private matter.

So the lawyer for the Miss California pageant gets ahold of the tape, plays it for Prejan and her mother, as they are discussing a dismissal of the suit - oh, and Prejan was only 17 in the tape. That's a problem, and a police matter.

A horny 17 year old making a sex tape isn't news.

This only gets the "man bites dog" angle for the sleazy attorney who demonstrated the gold standard in progressive legal ethics - that is, when your client can't win on the merits of its case, dig up a felonious tape of your opponent, and let the blackmail begin.

I doubt the California bar will have anything to say about this.

The degenerate militant homosexual moonbat and utterly useless "celebrity blogger" of a human Perez Hilton is already screeching loudly about this. Why wouldn't he? The militant left loves scorched earth Politics.

What better way to attack your opponent? If they don't support your sexual practices, then air theirs to the world via an illegal tape. Brilliant!

If making a tape where she touched herself and giving it to her boyfriend is the worst thing she ever did, then she's got me beat by a few miles.

Pretty convenient way for the MSM to distract people from the Islamist attack at Fort Hood, and the way the House just passed a bill that literally would put people in prison for not buying health insurance.

Too funny V the K. Touching herself and giving it to her boyfriend has got you beat worst things ever done.

MSM Distraction? Let's take a quick look at Fox vs CNN.

Fox: Lessons From a Terror Bomber
Senate Panel Warned of Homegrown Threat (Ft. Hood)
Prejean gets a "Hannity Exclusive"

CNN: Virginia Ready to Execute Sniper
Fallen Cops Buddy Said Quick Prayer (Ft. Hood)
Prejean is way down in the entertainment section

Lao, don't you want to take this opportunity to condemn the thuggish tactics employed by Hilton, the pageant, and their lawyers?

Or are you okay with the militant homosexual movement trying to heap ruination on someone whose views on gay marriage are identical to the Clintons, Biden, and even the moonbat messiah himself?

That's funny, I didn't see you condemning Obama for that view. Did I happen to miss the memo that states that heterosexual-only marriage is an acceptable position if held by a liberal and not a Christian?

Its telling that your response to blackmail backed up by child porn, coming from attorneys, no less, is a mere mention of CNN mentioning Ft. Hood and the Beltway Sniper long after the story broke.

You are a naughty little mormon, aren't you v?

Actually AnonCount I have not paid any attention to Prejean and her woes, real or imagined, which was why I mocked V the K's assertion that this is a MSM "distraction" from more important things.

As you can see, Fox is giving this a more upfront play than CNN.

Lao, while I would normally agree that anything exclusive to the American entertainment culture is not news, and has no bearing on the lives of people living in the real world, this entire debacle is an important reminder of the problems of political correctness and double standards, as well as the lengths to which some movements will go to vilify their opponents.

If the left wanted an open and honest debate on this, then why are they injecting ambush questions where they don't belong, then conducting a massive mainstream smear campaign against conservatives whose views aren't any different than liberals who get a pass?

On a related note, why is Limbaugh constantly subjected to crude attacks for every statement he makes that could, in some distant and distorted context, be interpreted as even mildly misogynistic, while Olbermann's misogyny is extreme, open, and apparently not a concern of the left? Rush has said some boneheaded things, as have almost all pundits, but when you look at general trends and habits, it is Olbermann who makes a living trafficking in hate and personal attacks.

Chris Matthews: "That's not a crime to call Al Qaeda, is it?"

Terrible Terror, Terrible Terrorist: Part Two

Amid new allegations that the Obama administration is withholding “critical information” concerning the murders at Fort Hood, ranking Republican Pete Hoekstra is demanding the CIA and the FBI release full details on what he calls “a terrorism attack” at our military facility in Texas.

Why a congressman would have to insist the government inform the governed of such information is beyond me. It smacks of Whitewater–and whitewash: http://bit.ly/3W73Fk.

However, there’s much more about those murders.

Todd Huston on AmericanConservative.com outed something the Obama administration would very much like to keep under wraps, the connection between the alleged murderer, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, and the Obamians.

Handwriting on a wall is one thing, often equivalent to scrawled grafitti. Messages chiseled into a wall by a dedicated terrorist are something else again. . .

(Read the rest at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1315)

Not sure which is worse in this situation. The lawyers who blackmailed their way out of paying damages or the hypocritical cretins that cry about Prejean being (insert expletive) because she solo'd on tape.

Give me a f@cking break, the only people that could condemn her and get away with it are people who have never masturbated.

So I guess this means we should abandon the thousands year old tradition of man/woman marriage?

Mrs. Prejean's morality or lack of judgement is not the issue.

She was asked a very direct question about gay marriage, she answered honestly, and was savagely attacked by trash media like TMZ because her answer didn't fit the approved PC template.

Curiously, Barack Obama's position on gay marriage was (and remains) identical to Mrs. Prejeans. Nary a peep from the perpetually "outraged" gay mafia.

If Carrie Prejean were a liberal you would being going crazy for her taping that. Nice double standard.

The Bush-Cheney-Hasan Connection

Hot on the heals of the Bush-Balloon Boy connection, and the Iraq-Stupak connection, now we have the inevitable Bush-Cheney-Hasan connection.

Writing about the mass murder by al-Qaeda-infatuated Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood, a blogger at Firedoglake invokes the evil spirit of Bush/Cheney, Will There Be A Push To Torture Nidal Hasan?:

Had this horrible tragedy occurred while George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were still in office, I have no doubt that Cheney would have pushed very hard for Bush to declare Hasan an illegal enemy combatant so that he could be held without charges and subjected to torture. This torture would, in time, produce a confession of an al Qaeda connection by Hasan and he likely would implicate many other people with additional plots. Because they were produced under torture, however, such statements would forever be tainted by the known tendency of torture victims to make false confessions in an attempt to stop the torture....

I think that it is urgent that the government take several immediate steps to prevent the appearance of torture or a coerced confession from Hasan....

The world is watching. Will Hasan receive due process or will he be tortured?

You can't make this stuff up. Except they always do.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 10, 2009 11:51 AM

I can't speak for anyone else but myself but I personally wouldn't if someone were being blackmailed by another party to drop their lawsuit.

Just because she is opposed to gay marriage (like Obama and the vast majority of conservatives) the Left cranks up the MSM to try and destroy her life.

That is all the liberal media and their cohorts are really good at.

Oh, and fuck you, anon.

COULD IT BE ANY CLEARER!?

It IS the difference between RIGHT and left

The Obama is not getting any award, so there's no motivation for the Moron in Chief to attend.

Plus, it was the fall of communism and that saddens the obama.

The progressive left also likes to impute fundamentalist Christian values to anyone who makes their Christianity public, regardless of their level of adherence or their specific tradition of practice.

Christianity is not one homogeneous group. It is a broad umbrella for a diverse variety of traditions that all incorporate the story of Jesus.

So, because a Christian dared to speak of her views on marriage, the radical left is now using that as a basis to attack her for sexual hypocrisy, regardless of the fact that she has never spoke on the issue of sexuality in public - her comments were limited to marriage as a tradition.

So will some enlightened progressive please show me the hypocrisy? I'd like to hear where she condemned all masturbators or unmarried nakedness to the pits of hell for eternity. Surely, if she is a hard-right fundamentalist Christian, there should be some record of her condemning the relatively mild and normal behavior that most Christians engage in but do not condemn.

Some Christians would take strong moral offense to her pre-marital activities; most would simply say it was stupid to film it. That won't stop trash bloggers and militant moonbats from smearing anyone who even loosely follows Christianity, right after those hypocritical leftists attack all conservatives because one conservative hinted that all gays are perverts or enjoy the Folsom Street festivities.

She expressed the same non-PC opinion held by Obama, but since she is conservative, she is now subject to the wrath of the PC mafia.

Anonymous Countermoonbat, here's some stuff I saw earlier on Carrie Prejean:

The thing for the media morons is Carrie Prejean is Christian. Christians are not allowed to do anything wrong, you see. The Alinksy rule is make them live up to their rules, but the media doesn't understand Christianity so they believe that we must live sinless lives in order to be Christian. If we do something off, they say we are hypocrites. That's the sort of idiocy that comes from not knowing jack or squat about Christianity.

In a nutshell, we're imperfect and perfect, constantly doing dumb sh-t, repenting, and being forgiven, thanks to Jesus Christ. That's the lifecycle of the Christian, and we don't escape that until we die. Then, unless we reject Christ, we are totally perfect in Him.

Everything makes sense in a backwards world, wherein the opposite is always true.

Great point, V the K.

The MSM doesn't want to engage Christians with intellectual honesty, since it diminishes their ability to make baseless generalizations and straw man attacks against conservative political positions.

Even the Amish, who are among the most fundamental of Christians, tolerate youthful indiscretion to a certain degree, since it is a part of coming of age, and according to their beliefs, the power of God to forgive outweighs certain moral transgressions committed by those working to shape their lives according to Christian moral principles.

So, if Prejean is a fundamentalist, her behavior and her acceptance of responsibility for it doesn't make her a bad Christian, only a Christian in a younger stage of spiritual development. If she is a mainstream Christian, then her behavior wasn't that outrageous to begin with.

At any rate, she has shown no hypocrisy, since she only spoke of marriage as a social construct, not an exclusive context for sexual behavior. The only hypocrites are the leftist smear merchants, who generalize her beliefs as a basis for their attacks, while similarly condemning all conservatives because some conservatives choose to generalize gay lifestyles.

Well said, AC. You are one of the posters here I admire a great deal.

Daily Kos: Poll On Hasan's Motive For His Actions At Ft. Hood

#3 "He was trying to save these troops from the horrors of war that he heard about from returning troops"

SK: No! Get outta here! Really? I'm not going over there, so I'll trust you, but jeez, that takes the stupid cake, doesn't it?

Two important anniversaries today--the 20th of the fall of the Berlin wall, and the 234th, of the Marine Corp, oh, make that three-- it's the also 40th for Sesame Street, which began when PBS was the "fourth network."

Sesame Street is fine--but does it really deserve a week's worth of adoration on Google's home page?
What a bunch of clueless moonbats. Tomorrow is Veterans Day. Whatcha wanna bet it will be business as usual with the multi-colored Google home page?

Karin the link goes to Hot Air Pundit, a conservative blog. I wouldn't give Kos the traffic. :)

She expressed the same non-PC opinion held by Obama, but since she is conservative, she is now subject to the wrath of the PC mafia.

Posted by: Anonymous Countermoonbat at November 10, 2009 12:12 PM

LiberalLeftistProgressiveMoonbats also conveniently forget that the largest group in CA who upheld the ban on gay marriage at the voting booth last year was Blacks aka African-Americans.

But rather than call out their favored victim group and risk losing votes for Democrats, LiberalLeftistProgressiveMoonbats give that group a pass as well.

In their hatred-filled moonbat selves, only white Christian Conservatives are okay to demonize.

Interesting how moonbats DEMAND tolerance and respect for all of their varied "victim" groups, and yet they have NEVER demonstrated tolerance nor respect for those with a Conservative difference of opinion.

It's way past time to throw the Democrat Alinsky tactics back at them.

So in the day's Moonbattery Open Thread entitled "Priorities" we see that the biggest priority for the right is Ms Prejean and much loyal Mooning has attempted to cover (so to speak) her backside.

For the right, the memorial service at Ft Hood has not deserved any comment.

I understand the President delivered some remarks.

You can find a transcript here:

Obama at Ft. Hood

They did not use the tape to force her to settle. She signed a contract to say this type of footage did not exist - but it did and she got called on it. She specifically violated the contract she signed, and a lawyer used the tape to prove it and close the lawsuit for his client.
Sucks, but ultimately she signed the contract, and made the tape. Mistake? maybe, but hardly the lawyers fault.

They did not use the tape to force her to settle. She signed a contract to say this type of footage did not exist - but it did and she got called on it. She specifically violated the contract she signed, and a lawyer used the tape to prove it and close the lawsuit for his client.

The existence of a tape contrary to her assertions would provide a cause of action for breach of contract with regard to her participation agreement, and could serve as the basis for a recovery of certain monies or privileges given to her by the organization (or liquidated damages in lieu thereof).

Breach of contract is not a defense to defamation, religious discrimination, or infliction of emotional distress, which is what she claimed in her suit.

She could have breached every stipulation of her contract and that still would not serve as a defense to what she sued for.

Try again.

Sucks, but ultimately she signed the contract, and made the tape. Mistake? maybe, but hardly the lawyers fault.

The contract has absolutely nothing to do with the meat of her suit.

That being said, even lawyers do not have a privilege to possess child pornography to blackmail a party into settling a suit.

Read the article. The tape was made when she was 17. The pageant's lawyers dug it up, then played it to Prejean and her mother during a round of negotiation. That is both highly illegal and extremely slimy, even for a lawyer.

That tape was wholly irrelevant to discussions on the discharge of her claims, since her breach of the contract offers no defense to what she sued for.

"We will make the case that her title was taken from her solely because of her support of traditional marriage," her attorney, Charles LiMandri, said in a news release."
He denied any contract violations by Prejean, calling those claims a "complete and utter pretext" for her firing. The list Lewis gave to reporters of Prejean's missed appearances was "an outright fraud," he said.

Seems to me they were making the case that her title wasn't stripped because of contract violations but because of her political views, they just showed a material breach. Who's word are we taking she was 17? Carrie's? She lied before evidently.

Perhaps you should get on the case Perry, since her other attorney suggested she fold like a cheap suit.

Here she is claiming that she was 17 when the first pictures came out:
"On Monday, photos surfaced on a web site showing a topless Carrie Prejean posing provocatively. However, Carrie quickly responded to the photos, claiming she was only 17 years old when the pictures were taken. But was Carrie’s claim a strategic move since many media outlets would not likely air underage nudity?
Today, Access Hollywood uncovered evidence, which may put her age at over 18 when the photos were taken."
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/showbiz/2009-05/06/content_7748759.htm

So, now if she is lying about 17 what is your other objections with what the lawyers did?

"We will make the case that her title was taken from her solely because of her support of traditional marriage," her attorney, Charles LiMandri, said in a news release."

Seems to me they were making the case that her title wasn't stripped because of contract violations but because of her political views, they just showed a material breach.

This statement addresses the claim of religious discrimination. It does not imply anything regarding the other claims in the suit.

Based on the timeline, her material breach may be legally irrelevant to the claim of religious discrimination. Discovery of a legal reason to terminate her contract is moot if used as an excuse to retroactively justify a prohibited civil rights violation.

Employment discrimination cases are routinely won despite legal grounds for termination, in cases where the employer has already made a decision to terminate based on a prohibited reason.

Perhaps you should get on the case Perry, since her other attorney suggested she fold like a cheap suit.

Her attorney did not fold. She folded, because she does not want a sex tape to be made public, hence the issue of blackmail.

This issue was resolved because the liberal smear machine dug up dirt, not because they had an ironclad defense to her suit.

The pageant paid over $100k to cover her legal fees. They would not have done this with an airtight case.

Who's word are we taking she was 17? Carrie's? She lied before evidently.

So, now if she is lying about 17 what is your other objections with what the lawyers did?

Whose word are they taking that the tape is legal? Are they relying on the word of someone who had a vested interest in claiming that the tape was legal, so that the seller could bring it to market?

If it was an ex-boyfriend who sold it for money or gave it away out of spite, that person also has a good reason to lie.

Since possession is 9/10ths of the law, you would have to be incredibly stupid to be in possession of what might be illegal material based solely on the word of the seller.

Unless she happens to appear in the video holding her driver's license or something dated after her 18th birthday, then those attorneys are playing with fire. They are scumbags for using what might be an illegal tape in furtherance of what basically amounts to blackmail.

Today, Access Hollywood uncovered evidence, which may put her age at over 18 when the photos were taken." http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/showbiz/2009-05/06/content_7748759.htm

We are discussing a sexually explicit video, not the earlier modeling shots, which would not be illegal even if she were 17. Try again.

You sure talk a good game, but it's irrelevant. The USA pageant claim is that she was released for breach - this video is evidence. If her Mother or lawyer thought the footage was illegal they could have called the Police.

Surely you're not claiming you're the only person with the "Midas touch" when it comes to the law? That her lawyer doesn't know the legal definition of "blackmail" as you call it? In fact her lawyer does not even have to be under her direction if he believes that a 3rd party is in possession of A/ illegal evidence B:/ Is using it to extort his client - why isn't he complaining to the Police or the State Bar?

I never said the pictures were illegal, I pointed to the fact that the first thing she did was claim she was underage - which was proven false which shows a pattern of lying about being underage in the belief it will stop distribution of the material.

This was her mistake, she's now paying for it - blaming the lawyer is stupid, unless you're claiming he held the camera for her :)

Who to believe?

Dirty Dave Letterman, the teflon-coated comedian/late night talk show host is being beseiged once again.

Not that any of it mattered to CBS or its president Les Moonves.

However, since he wed long-time live in, Regina Lasko, mother of his now 6 year old Harry, in March, poor Dave has repeatedly been run through a mill of his own making and always comes out well, smelling like Dave.

CBS’ meal ticket can apparently do no harm.

His reference to Sarah Palin as a slut and to her daughter, Bristol, as not much better didn’t even stir the ire of the NOLW, the National Organization of Leftist Women and other defenders of the fair sex because he is philosophically one of them.

Rather than offer a true apology for those nasty slurs, he gave a feigned contrite pro forma on-air speech and to demonstrate his heart-felt sincerity compensated by relentless ridicule of Palin and, lately, of her best-selling book, Going Rogue.

For those who’ve forgotten that contretemps, including either Bristol’s or 14 year old sister, Willow’s bumping the uglies with A-Rod out in right field of Yankee Stadium, do see http://bit.ly/3jvH2h.

Then came yet another tear-jerker, his disclosure in September, also in front of his adoring, applauding audience, that he had been the object of an extortion plot by Joe-Bob Halderman, a CBS producer.

Not wanting to cough up a two million dollar ransom for his reputation, Letterman instead called in the cops and Halderman was arrested.

And the crowd applauded more.

That mess related to Dave’s promoting his former, young and perky intern, Stephanie Birkitt, . . .
(Read the rest at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1316)

You sure talk a good game, but it's irrelevant. The USA pageant claim is that she was released for breach - this video is evidence.

Yes, that is their claim. Even if you look at the claims in the light most favorable to the pageant, neither the video nor any other breaches of hers are a defense to the alleged libel or infliction of emotional distress. Period.

The video may be evidence of the breach, but it is not necessarily evidence of their lack of wrongdoing on the claim of religious discrimination. Unless they have been secretly holding this video from the very beginning, before the controversy erupted (and brought the video's owner out of the woodwork), then they cannot claim this video serves as a justification for her termination - the facts point to the decision to terminate being formulated before they got ahold of the video.

If her Mother or lawyer thought the footage was illegal they could have called the Police.

She is trying to bury the tape, which is why she agreed to a dismissal of the suit, even though the suit had enough merit for her six figure attorneys' fees to be paid by the defendant.

Calling the police attracts more attention to the video and makes it into evidence. Currently, since there is no active litigation, it is not evidence.

Surely you're not claiming you're the only person with the "Midas touch" when it comes to the law? That her lawyer doesn't know the legal definition of "blackmail" as you call it? In fact her lawyer does not even have to be under her direction if he believes that a 3rd party is in possession of A/ illegal evidence B:/ Is using it to extort his client - why isn't he complaining to the Police or the State Bar?

Her lawyer is listening to her - you know, representing his client, as he should be. Not making the video into a police matter allowed him to craft a settlement that got him paid.

I never said the pictures were illegal, I pointed to the fact that the first thing she did was claim she was underage - which was proven false which shows a pattern of lying about being underage in the belief it will stop distribution of the material.

The pictures are not sexually explicit, so a claim of being underage will not halt their distribution.

The video is sexually explicit, so a claim of being underage must halt its distribution for fear of illegal possession alone. In fact, for anyone to profit from that video, the producer(s) will have to affirmatively comply with 18 USC 2257 and prove the material was produced after the performer's 18th birthday.

The lack of proper recordkeeping alone can send someone to prison, even if the government can't prove the material was produced using a minor.

Sexually explicit material becomes incredibly toxic when there is any doubt whatsoever about the age.

This was her mistake, she's now paying for it - blaming the lawyer is stupid, unless you're claiming he held the camera for her :)

I'm blaming the pageant's lawyers for underhanded and scummy tactics, even if she was of legal age in the video. Based on the facts, this video came out of the woodwork after the controversy was already in full gear.

That makes the pageant's lawyers complicit in the liberal smear machine, since the use of the video as leverage is essentially retroactive justification. If the video was not known at the time the decision to terminate was made, then it should have no bearing on the legal proceedings, and therefore, no legitimate use in settlement negotiations.

It found its way into settlement negotiations because the defendants assumed, correctly, that she does not want that video to become public.

On second thought, you must be either a moonbat or a defense attorney.

The reasonable person would see the blatant arm-twisting that is going on here.

"wrongdoing on the claim of religious discrimination"
I think you'll find with even the most cursory glance that the claims of "religious discrimination" were linked to her employment. Here, yet again I'll quote her lawyer for you again -- perhaps it'll sink in:
"attorney Charles LiMandri claims that Prejean made all the appearances that were required of her, and that she was in fact fired because of her gay-marriage response, which she characterizes as a statement of her religious belief. "

Here again she claims that she was fired for her belief:
the suit alleges that the defendants -- pageant co-directors Shanna Moakler and Keith Lewis, and publicist Roger Neal -- engaged in a conspiracy to defame and ultimately fire her after she repeated her anti-gay-marriage stance on the Today show.

She signed a contract that stated :
“appearing in public or permitting myself to be photographed in a state of partial or total nudity or in a lewd, compromising or sexually suggestive manner constitutes a violation of this provision (this includes photographs of images that may appear on any Web site, such as MySpace of Facebook).”

She lied, and the contract was breached multiple times by appearances of multiple pictures matching this criteria.

Once again, we honor today those brave millions who have served and fought for our country over its history. Without them, we would not have a history.

We especially pay tribute to those now fighting in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. May they all come home healthy.

Remember to fly our flag!

I proudly reprint here last year’s two Veterans Day salutes:

It was the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month when the ”War to End All Wars,” “the Great War,” ended in 1918 with the declaration of an armistice.

The fighting was over between the Allies and Germany, the bloodletting was finished, even though the politicians took another seven months to declare an official end to what would become known as World War I with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles: http://www1.va.gov/opa/vetsday/vetdayhistory.asp

Ironically, the punitive and shortsighted nature of that treaty . . .
(Read the rest at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1317)

The pictures are not sexually explicit, so a claim of being underage will not halt their distribution.
I never said she was smart, in fact she is an idiot but never-the-less this is exactly the claim she made the first time she was caught breaking the rules (apart from claiming the wind blew her top off.)

That makes the pageant's lawyers complicit in the liberal smear machin
No, it makes them smart enough to put an end to their clients lawsuit, and dismiss Carrie Prejeans frivolous claim of discrimination.

no legitimate use in settlement negotiations.
Please can you point to an article that says when the USA Pageant lawyer first came into possession of this videotape?

You keep insinuating that this behavior is unethical, like perhaps the exchange occurred by passing her a video tape in a brown paper bag, in a parking lot - this all took place in a discovery meeting. Please point to where the lawyers or USA threatened to make it public? they disclosed their evidence they would be using to defend their clients in this case. They in fact saved her the embarrassment of using the video in court.

The reasonable person would see the blatant arm-twisting that is going on here.
Or just some people don't need to agree or defend some idiot who said something once about gay marriage and then had a sex tape she claimed didn't exist leak.