Tamara Holder, a Fox News contributor, is accused of having an affair with Jesse Jackson, Sr. in a lawsuit that alleges the illegal use of a gay Jackson employee to facilitate the relationship.
The accuser, Tommy R. Bennett, was Jackson’s personal travel assistant and ran the legal clinic at Jackson’s organization, the Rainbow PUSH Coalition. He says he was eventually fired for protesting his treatment by Jackson and other PUSH employees and is seeking hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages.
Holder has not responded to repeated requests for comment from Accuracy in Media, but Jackson’s press representative, Lauren Love, says the allegations are false and will be proven so.
Bennett attorney Thomas V. Leverso says that Jackson and PUSH have been stonewalling a legal response for many months but that investigations and the case are moving forward. Leverso tells Accuracy in Media that witnesses have come forward to verify the allegations against Jackson.
Jackson, a minister and Democratic politician who served as an aide to Martin Luther King, Jr., suffered a major embarrassment in 2010 when he admitted to an extramarital affair that produced an illegitimate child.
Bennett worked for Jackson for more than two years and was known as “Aruba Tommy” on local Chicago radio station WVON. The lawsuit alleges that Bennett was subjected to “humiliating tasks” because he was a homosexual, such as “escorting women to his [Jackson’s] hotel room” and then being ordered to clean up after Jackson had sexual intercourse with them.
One of those women, the suit claims, was Tamara Holder, a pundit and criminal defense attorney who claims she “single-handedly” founded what she calls “a pro bono legal clinic at Rev. Jesse L. Jackson’s Rainbow PUSH Coalition.” A self-described Democrat, she appears regularly on Fox News to defend the Obama Administration and other prominent Democrats. “Because of the Democratic Party’s deep Chicago roots, Tamara has worked closely with some of the City’s most prominent leaders,” her website says.
Another Holder website says that, in addition to being “a legal and political contributor for Fox News Channel,” she “previously wrote for The Huffington Post and now writes for The Daily Caller.” The latter identifies her as “one of the nation’s rising attorneys and legal analytical stars.”
On one occasion, “Mr. Bennett was instructed by Rev. Jackson to escort Ms. Holder to Rev. Jackson’s hotel room at the Hilton at Chicago O’Hare airport,” the suit says.
The lawsuit, filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, says Bennett was director of the clinic but that when he objected to Holder taking a majority of the cases and charging too much to poor clients, he was replaced. He says Jackson then gave control of the clinic to Holder.
The allegations are the subject of several legal actions and complaints, including one by Bennett to the Chicago Commission on Human Relations, which is still under investigation, and another to the Illinois Department of Human Rights, which was not acted upon, prompting the lawsuit.
Bennett’s original complaint consisted of seven charges, including that Jackson exhibited a “bigoted attitude” toward homosexuals and ordered him to perform “improper job duties.” This was followed by a “supplemental statement of facts” from his attorney that runs eight pages in length.
This document declares, “It was well known that Ms.
The prosecutor in charge of the Trayvon Martin murder case has won a case in which a woman received a 20-year jail sentence for trying to protect herself against her allegedly abusive husband.
Marissa Alexander fired a bullet into a wall as she tried to flee her husband, who was threatening to strangle her in August 2010.
Immediately, Democratic U.S. Rep Corinne Brown accused prosecutor Angela Corey of “over-charging” Alexander with aggravated assault. “There is no justification for 20 years,” Brown told Corey during a confrontation in the hallway of the Jacksonville, Fla. Courthouse, according to CNN.
Just last week, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz told Newsmax TV in an exclusive interview that Corey is notorious for over-charging cases. . . .
I keep thinking of an episode of the 1973 TV show, “Kojak: The Marcus-Nelson Murders.” Homicide detective Kojak suspects that the black teenager accused of murdering two white girls is being framed by his fellow detectives.
The case gets a lot of media attention; politics and careers enter the mix. The frightened accused black kid pleads his innocence to detective Kojak who believes him. Kojak educates the defendant to the cold harsh reality of the situation. Kojak informed the kid that despite his innocence, the case had become such a political hot button and because the police held the kid in jail for so long, he must be found guilty of something.
I see this same scenario developing in the Martin/Zimmerman case.
Most Americans desire a fair and just outcome of this tragedy. But, Lord help us if the evidence proves Zimmerman to be innocent. If Zimmerman is ruled not-guilty and allowed to walk, I foresee Rodney King-type riots in the streets. Thus, is Zimmerman’s fate already sealed? Will a jury decide Zimmerman must be declared guilty of something?
While Al Sharpton, New Black Panthers and all of the other racist race-hustling usual suspects clamor for justice for Trayvon Martin, I wonder if justice is even possible for George Zimmerman.
Will political correctness ensure that Zimmerman be found guilty of something regardless of the evidence?
Tragically and frighteningly, we live in a time in which the law and truth appears to be losing relevance in America.
For example. Clearly, the individual mandate in Obamacare is unconstitutional. And yet, Obama believes he can bully the Supreme Court to rule in his favor because “he” believes the mandate is a good thing. Ponder that folks, the president is pressuring U.S. Supreme Court justices to bend the truth and the law to suit his desires. Obama, the president who would be King.
For years, Democrats have been trying to abort the thorn-in-the-side stumbling block to their socialistic agenda known as the U.S. Constitution. Who could have imagined deceiving the American people into putting a black Trojan Horse extreme left liberal into the Oval Office would “Git-r-done”?
If Obama successfully forces U.S. Supreme Court justices to succumb to his politically correct interpretation of the law and rule Obamacare constitutional, setting such a precedence could mean so-called “white Hispanic” George Zimmerman is toast. It would mean facts, truth and the law are no longer relevant — only what the people/mob want rules the day.
Regardless if the evidence proves otherwise, Zimmerman will be found guilty of “something” to avoid riots in the streets. We are talking political correctness on steroids.
Folks, I am not saying Zimmerman is innocent. I do not know. I am simply saying in these morally bankrupt times in which we live, I am concerned that facts and truth are becoming irrelevant.
Since Zimmerman posted $150,000 bail, here are just a few of the shocking tweets calling for violence against him.
I think I’ll grab a Big Mac this afternoon to celebrate:
A San Francisco judge has dismissed a proposed class-action lawsuit that sought to stop McDonald’s Corp. from using toys to market its meals to children in the Golden State. The suit had been filed in late 2010 by Monet Parham, a California mother of two, and The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer advocacy group based in Washington, D.C.
The suit had claimed that the world’s biggest hamburger chain was violating consumer protection laws by using toys to lure them to eat nutritionally unbalanced meal. The lawsuit did not seek damages.
The Center for Science in the Public Interest said in a statement that it will discuss whether to appeal the case.
A little background on the “concerned mother” who the Center for Science in the Public Interest used as a front for the lawsuit:
Much of the interviewing press was happy to treat Monet Parham as a random (if oddly well-informed) California mom, but it didn’t take the blogosphere long to discover that she is apparently anything but random. Ira Stoll, who blogs at Future of Capitalism and used to put out the New York Times-tweaking smartertimes.com, soon discovered (via a commenter) that she is in fact the same person as Monet Parham-Lee, who is a “regional program manager” on the state of California payroll for child nutrition matters.
Specifically, she works on a federally funded program that campaigns to exhort people to eat their vegetables and that sort of thing.
Just a mom who can’t control what her kids eat? Nah, it was just another attempt to give the government more power and control, which is why the CSPI exists — pencil-neck buttboys for The Nanny State.
Well fellow Americans, here is another case of highly improper legislating from the bench; somehow we have got to stop appointing judges who are not subject to recall or outright dismissal for rulings against the general welfare of the public citizens and in violation of the general spirit, if not the letter of the laws of the United States.
In Front Porch Politics on February 24, 2012, with added comments from The Blaze published on February 23, 2012, the unfortunate story of an incident that began as a form of protest by atheists marching in the Halloween parade last October, one as “Zombie Muhammad” and another as “Zombie Pope”. No harm was inflicted on the latter of the two demonstrators where charges were brought and a trial was conducted on the actions perpetrated by the Muslim who was ‘offended’ by the depiction of Muhammad.
In this case, a judge of Muslim faith “lectured,” not the violator of the law but the seriously injured and abused victim on, of all things, the Joys of Islam. Where is the joy; particularly in this case? Due to the judge’s ruling the joy is found only in the minds of the violator and his co-religious believing judicial savior, the very wrong judge. Is this what our judicial findings are coming to in America; false associations with religion?
The assault was captured on video and the Muslim man admitted to his crime, saying that he did not know mocking Muhammed was actually legal in the U.S.. Charges, of course, were filed. This is one of the reasons why Americans are so insistent that immigrants should not be allowed residency in the United States until they are familiar with basic human rights laws set forth in our Constitution, among other things such as knowledge of the language, etc.
Viciously beating on an American citizen who was expressing his First Amendment rights of Freedom of Speech certainly brought no joy to the victim. I don’t mean to approve of anyone bringing mockery to another person’s religion, but physically beating that person is well beyond the violation of the victim’s First Amendment rights. Overly exaggerated in this case with an ignorant of the law, by choice, immigrant savagely beating a lawful American citizen in stark violation of his rights to free speech and then finding an immigrant judge lecturing the injured and abused victim while the violator goes scot free.
How many times have we Americans heard the pronouncements of a judge saying, “Ignorance of the law is no excuse for the violation of that law.” I suspect that nearly all immigrants to this country, except those of Islamic faith, are aware that inflicting bodily punishment on another person except in self-defense from physical harm is a violation of our constitutional laws and must be punished when administered to another person.
For an immigrant who claims to be a beneficiary of this Islamic joy to violently inflict injury on another legal citizen, or anybody for that matter, the penalty should be immediate deportation from our country. This is a prime example of a violation of the law as is DOCUMENTED in this country and usually enforced by judges who have sworn to uphold our Constitution.
Religious freedom is a precious thing, especially in a world bloated with politically correct pabulum. But that freedom is not absolute. Unlike freedom of belief, it is subject to restrictions. For example, you can sincerely believe your religion requires you to have multiple wives or to kill those who blaspheme your god, but you can’t legally practice those beliefs in the United States.
The government must balance the general welfare of society against religious freedom, and the government certainly has a compelling interest in barring things like polygamy and faith-based murder. But what standard applies when a Christian student at a taxpayer-supported university seeking a state license refuses to affirm or validate homosexual relationships or heterosexual extramarital affairs, both of which violate biblical teachings?
Julea Ward was a graduate-level counseling student at Eastern Michigan University (EMU) when she was expelled for asking her faculty supervisor to refer a homosexual client to another student. (Chuck Colson discussed Ward’s case in this BreakPoint commentary.)
For three years, Ward had made it clear to her professors that her Christian beliefs prevented her from affirming homosexual clients’ behavior, which violated her religion’s tenets. EMU teaches students in the counseling program to affirm their clients’ values during sessions, although students have the option of referring clients based on values. Ward’s professors didn’t like it, but she was allowed to continue her studies.
Near the end of her program, in a practicum, Ward was asked to counsel a homosexual client. She requested either a referral or that the school permit her to begin counseling and make a referral if the subject of same-sex relationships came up. EMU referred the client to another student, and Ward met with her supervisor for their weekly meeting. The supervisor expressed disappointment and scheduled an informal review. Faculty members gave Ward the choice of dropping out of the program or requesting a formal review. She chose the review.
The school charged Ward with violating two provisions of the American Counseling Association’s (ACA) code ethics: one against imposing values on clients “inconsistent with counseling goals” and one against discrimination based on sexual orientation. EMU expelled her.
Ward sued, claiming that EMU violated her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The trial court ruled against her, but last month, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in her favor (22 pages in PDF). The court noted that EMU didn’t have a no-referral policy, and practicum students were allowed to request values-based referrals.
In fact, Ward had sought to avoid imposing her values on homosexual clients. She was willing to counsel these clients, but not if she had to affirm or validate their behavior. The court found there was enough evidence for a reasonable jury to determine that Ward was expelled because of her religious beliefs.
Rep. Hastings is a perfect example of what's wrong with government in the 21st Century, say many observers. Credit: Congressional Press Office Archive
In spite of the lack of news media coverage, the top official of a successful — and feared — public-interest groupresponded to a ruling by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in a sexual harassment lawsuit filed on behalf of Winsome Packer, a female federal employee who alleges that she was repeatedly subjected to “unwelcome sexual advances,” “unwelcome touching” and retaliation from Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL).
On February 14, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbiaruled that pursuant to the Congressional Accountability Act the case will now proceed under Bivens, “an avenue for individuals to seek damages from federal officials for Constitutional violations of civil rights.” The U.S. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe will now serve as the sole defendant in the lawsuit.
Tom Fitton, President of Judicial Watch, an organization that investigates and exposes government corruption, responded to the ruling by saying, “This court ruling does not exonerate Congressman Hastings. This is simply a procedural decision as how our lawsuit will proceed. We’re confident when the court weighs the considerable evidence against Hastings in this case, Winsome Packer will get the justice she deserves.”
“As the Office of Congressional Ethics recently ruled, there is good reason to believe that Congressman Hastings violated Ms. Packer’s civil rights. Rep. Hastings’attacks against Winsome Packer are disgraceful, unlawful and beneath the office he holds,” said Fitton.
Impeachment of Judge Hastings
According to a January 13, 2012 Examiner story, prior to his election to congress, Hastings worked as a private-practice attorney, a civil rights activist, and a Florida judge. Appointed by President Jimmy Carter in 1979, he became the first African-American federal judge in the state of Florida, and served in that position for ten years. He’s still called “Judge” by some of his colleagues, but one would think he’d rather forget his days on the federal bench.
In 1989, Judge Hastings was impeached by the US House of Representatives for bribery and perjury. The Democratic-controlled Senate convicted Hastings of accepting a $150,000 bribe in 1981 in exchange for a lenient sentence and of perjury in his testimony about the case. Hastings said the charges against him smacked of racism.
He distinguished himself by being only the sixth Judge in US history to be removed from office by the US Senate. So damning was the evidence against him that Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), a founding member of the CBC, favored impeaching him.
Conyers, who is also black, said he “found no trace of racism during the investigation.” He urged his colleagues to remove Hastings from the bench. He said, “[Hastings] is unfit to serve.”
His impeachment was remanded back to the Senate by Judge Stanley Sporkinafter Hastings filed a lawsuit claiming that his impeachment trial was invalid because he was tried by a Senate committee, not in front of the full Senate, and that he had been acquitted in a criminal trial.
But the US Supreme Court had ruled in a similar case, regarding Judge Walter Nixon, who had also been impeached and removed.
As I expected, the very left wing and frequently overturned Judge Reinhardt argues that there is no rational reason to have marriage between a man and a woman. Whatever one thinks about homosexual marriage, this is not the way to get the political outcomes that one wants. A copy of the decision is available here.
The dissent points out that under the level of scrutiny involved for this case the government “has no obligation to provide evidence to sustain the rationality of statutory classification,” that the measure at issue “is not subject to courtroom fact-finding and may be based on rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data,” and that states “may use their police power to regulate the ‘morals’ of their population” (pp. 11-12). If anything, the dissent doesn’t go far enough in that it would seem to only allow states to withhold the word “marriage,” not any of the rights that come with it, from homosexual marriage.
The majority here also doesn’t explain why any type of a marriage between consenting adults shouldn’t be allowed.
If judges can go this far in arbitrarily judging whether legislation is rational or not, there is nothing that judges can’t redo in terms of their own political preferences.
I’m reserving any sense of closure on this craziness until convinced the 9th Circuit isn’t going to jump in at some point and not only reverse this decision, but make SeaWorld pay the orcas reparations.
An effort to free whales from SeaWorld by claiming they were enslaved made a splash in the news but flopped in court Wednesday.
A federal judge in San Diego dismissed an unprecedented lawsuit seeking to grant constitutional protection against slavery to a group of orcas that perform at SeaWorld parks, saying the 13th amendment applies only to humans.
U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Miller stopped the case from proceeding two days after he became the first judge in U.S. history to listen to arguments in court over the possibility of granting constitutional rights for members of an animal species.
Here’s some news video. I predict that the final lawsuit revolving around this story has yet to be filed, and it will probably come from The Onion, which has a legitimate complaint for copyright infringement:
California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriages is unconstitutional, according to a ruling announced Tuesday by an appeals court.
The long-awaited ruling by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court is likely to lead to more appeals, and marriages probably will remain on hold until that process ends.
The case was pending for months because the court wanted a ruling from the state Supreme Court on whether proponents of Proposition 8 had legal standing under the state’s citizen’s initiative process to appeal the ruling.
ProtectMarriage, the backers of Proposition 8, can appeal Tuesday’s decision to a larger panel of the 9th Circuit or go directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court is expected to be divided on the issue, and many legal scholars believe Justice Anthony Kennedy will be the deciding vote.
Gays and lesbians were entitled to marry in California for six months after the California Supreme Court struck down a state ban in May 2008. The state high court later upheld Proposition 8 as a valid amendment of the California Constitution.
While the Proposition 8 case was still pending in state court, two same-sex couples sued in federal court to challenge the ban on federal constitutional grounds.
***
Tweet of the day: @arizonashane “Given the opportunity, the 9th Circus would strike down the Constitution as unconstitutional.
Catch Kevin
If you like facts over fiction, reality over rhetoric, and truth over tradition, tune into my radio show, “Catch Kevin: Unscripted & Uncensored!”
Chuck Baldwin Live
Dr. Baldwin’s messages from Kalispell, MT, will be livestreamed on this page every Sunday afternoon at approximately 2:30 p.m. MST.
Clash Radio
Listen to Doug Giles Live Monday – Friday at 11am – 12pm[est]
Our Sponsors
Get in on the modern Gold Rush. Call now to buy gold bars from The U.S. Gold Bureau.
![bookmark](http://island-adv.com/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/images/blank.gif" height=){kind=small}
The case gets a lot of media attention; politics and careers enter the mix. The frightened accused black kid pleads his innocence to detective Kojak who believes him. Kojak educates the defendant to the cold harsh reality of the situation. Kojak informed the kid that despite his innocence, the case had become such a political hot button and because the police held the kid in jail for so long, he must be found guilty of something. 
I think I’ll grab a Big Mac this afternoon to 
Religious freedom is a precious thing, especially in a world bloated with politically correct pabulum. But that freedom is not absolute. Unlike freedom of belief, it is subject to restrictions. For example, you can sincerely believe your religion requires you to have multiple wives or to kill those who blaspheme your god, but you can’t legally practice those beliefs in the United States. 
Catch Kevin
Chuck Baldwin Live![Clash Radio Listen to Doug Giles Live Monday – Friday at 11am – 12pm[est]](http://island-adv.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/clash_logoreverse.png "Listen to Doug Giles Live Monday – Friday at 11am – 12pm[est]")
Clash Radio
