Proposed changes to legal aid and immigration rules are at odds with the government’s action plan on domestic violence and could put more women at risk The director of public prosecutions issued a timely warning against complacency this week. Domestic violence was “serious and pernicious”, Keir Starmer reminded us . “It ruins lives, breaks up families and has a lasting impact. It is criminal. And it has been with us for a very long time, yet it is only in the last 10 years that it has been taken seriously as a criminal justice issue.” The DPP applauded the good progress that has “undoubtedly been made since those administering criminal justice woke up to domestic violence”. “But even if domestic violence remains a priority for the Crown Prosecution Service, there remains the wider issue of complacency.” According to the CPS, nearly 1 million women experience domestic violence every year and 750,000 children witness it. Two women die every week as a result of it. Legal aid has a vital role to play in creating an escape route for many battered women and children from bad relationships. “I left a controlling and abusive ex-husband who it then transpired was a child abuser, something for which he was later prosecuted and sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment,” said a mother of two young children in a recent report published by the Rights of Women group. “I had to spend about six years fighting his various applications for contact with our children, despite the severity of the charges he was convicted for.” Without legal aid, the woman could not have afforded to see a lawyer. “This would have placed my two young daughters at very real risk of future abuse.” “No level of violence against women and girls is acceptable in modern Britain or anywhere else in this world,” declared the government in last month’s Action Plan . It was launched by Theresa May on the 100th anniversary of International Women’s Day and expressed the government’s commitment to helping victims come forward. It’s not an original observation, but not all parts of the government machine listen to each other. Certainly, the Ministry of Justice’s green paper on legal aid appears to have been drafted without cognisance of May’s desire to protect battered women. Its proposals on domestic violence need to be binned. For the past 35 years Rights of Women has provided legal help to the victims of domestic violence. Its response to the legal aid green paper, which seeks to remove much of family law advice from the scheme, is a powerful testimony to the value of publicly funded legal advice at its most effective (and includes the comment from the mother of two above). It is all the more persuasive for being an evidence-based response drawing on a survey of 336 women: more than half experienced violence (58%) and the vast majority described that violence as domestic violence (81.6%). Just under half (46.6%) had reported that violence to the police or applied to the court for a domestic violence injunction. That last statistic is critical in the context of the MoJ’s proposals. Women experiencing violence will only receive legal aid if there is an injunction or conviction for a domestic violence offence. The mother who successfully fled her child abuser husband wouldn’t have qualified because she was not able to demonstrate evidence of the risk he posed to her children until after she separated. Lucy Cohen is a partner at the Bradford firm Williscroft & Co and reckons they take out injunctions to protect clients on average half a dozen times a week. “A lot of those that are vulnerable and need legal aid don’t have convictions or injunctions precisely because they’re so vulnerable. A lot of women we come across over issues of contact and finance have been victims of domestic violence but they don’t want to get an injunction, they don’t want to air their problems publicly, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t need help.” All the women respondents in the RoW research were asked for their reasons for reporting and not reporting violence. “My partner was emotionally, physically and sexually abusive. He would tell me that the police would not take me seriously and it would be his word against mine,” said one woman. “He made much of the fact that husbands are never convicted of rape of their wives in this country.” Cohen argues that ministers are paying lip service to the issue. She points to their definition of domestic violence, which excludes “emotional” violence. Such a view is strikingly at odds with other parts of the government, the supreme court and, frankly, a commonsense understanding of domestic violence. “It has long been known that psychological abuse within a domestic context can cause at least as much long-term harm to the victim as physical abuse,” said Lord Brown earlier this year . Apparently not in the MoJ. As I blogged recently , the issue topped the list of concerns expressed by the Alan Beith-led select committee. Finally, May – despite her declaration – is planning to change the domestic violence rule in the immigration rules. It enables people who are on a spouse or partner visa and experiencing domestic violence to be able to leave that relationship and apply for indefinite leave. According to the immigration minister Damian Green, 700 victims of domestic violence rely upon it every year. The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association tells me the figure could be as high as 1,500. In a letter to the ILPA, Green says the UK Border Agency will continue to provide leave when needed to help protect women and girls “but settlement will not be automatic”. “For the very small number of cases of minor unspent criminality which would lead to a refusal under these rules, we will take a case-by-case approach.” Well, the numbers might be small, but that misses the point. “One person remaining in an abusive situation is one too many,” says the ILPA’s Alison Harvey. She believes it is “nothing short of astonishing” that a part of the Home Office is “allowed to rewrite the immigration rules” creating a risk for those in abusive relationships. “UKBA may say that it will look carefully at applications, but to no avail. The way the rules have been rewritten means that those survivors will not make the applications in the first place.” Joined-up government? I don’t think so. Jon Robins is a freelance journalist and director of the research company Jures , which runs the Justice Gap series examining different aspects of justice. It will publish a collection of essays with the Advice Services Alliance on public legal education next month Domestic violence Keir Starmer Legal aid UK criminal justice Women Jon Robins guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Proposed changes to legal aid and immigration rules are at odds with the government’s action plan on domestic violence and could put more women at risk The director of public prosecutions issued a timely warning against complacency this week. Domestic violence was “serious and pernicious”, Keir Starmer reminded us . “It ruins lives, breaks up families and has a lasting impact. It is criminal. And it has been with us for a very long time, yet it is only in the last 10 years that it has been taken seriously as a criminal justice issue.” The DPP applauded the good progress that has “undoubtedly been made since those administering criminal justice woke up to domestic violence”. “But even if domestic violence remains a priority for the Crown Prosecution Service, there remains the wider issue of complacency.” According to the CPS, nearly 1 million women experience domestic violence every year and 750,000 children witness it. Two women die every week as a result of it. Legal aid has a vital role to play in creating an escape route for many battered women and children from bad relationships. “I left a controlling and abusive ex-husband who it then transpired was a child abuser, something for which he was later prosecuted and sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment,” said a mother of two young children in a recent report published by the Rights of Women group. “I had to spend about six years fighting his various applications for contact with our children, despite the severity of the charges he was convicted for.” Without legal aid, the woman could not have afforded to see a lawyer. “This would have placed my two young daughters at very real risk of future abuse.” “No level of violence against women and girls is acceptable in modern Britain or anywhere else in this world,” declared the government in last month’s Action Plan . It was launched by Theresa May on the 100th anniversary of International Women’s Day and expressed the government’s commitment to helping victims come forward. It’s not an original observation, but not all parts of the government machine listen to each other. Certainly, the Ministry of Justice’s green paper on legal aid appears to have been drafted without cognisance of May’s desire to protect battered women. Its proposals on domestic violence need to be binned. For the past 35 years Rights of Women has provided legal help to the victims of domestic violence. Its response to the legal aid green paper, which seeks to remove much of family law advice from the scheme, is a powerful testimony to the value of publicly funded legal advice at its most effective (and includes the comment from the mother of two above). It is all the more persuasive for being an evidence-based response drawing on a survey of 336 women: more than half experienced violence (58%) and the vast majority described that violence as domestic violence (81.6%). Just under half (46.6%) had reported that violence to the police or applied to the court for a domestic violence injunction. That last statistic is critical in the context of the MoJ’s proposals. Women experiencing violence will only receive legal aid if there is an injunction or conviction for a domestic violence offence. The mother who successfully fled her child abuser husband wouldn’t have qualified because she was not able to demonstrate evidence of the risk he posed to her children until after she separated. Lucy Cohen is a partner at the Bradford firm Williscroft & Co and reckons they take out injunctions to protect clients on average half a dozen times a week. “A lot of those that are vulnerable and need legal aid don’t have convictions or injunctions precisely because they’re so vulnerable. A lot of women we come across over issues of contact and finance have been victims of domestic violence but they don’t want to get an injunction, they don’t want to air their problems publicly, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t need help.” All the women respondents in the RoW research were asked for their reasons for reporting and not reporting violence. “My partner was emotionally, physically and sexually abusive. He would tell me that the police would not take me seriously and it would be his word against mine,” said one woman. “He made much of the fact that husbands are never convicted of rape of their wives in this country.” Cohen argues that ministers are paying lip service to the issue. She points to their definition of domestic violence, which excludes “emotional” violence. Such a view is strikingly at odds with other parts of the government, the supreme court and, frankly, a commonsense understanding of domestic violence. “It has long been known that psychological abuse within a domestic context can cause at least as much long-term harm to the victim as physical abuse,” said Lord Brown earlier this year . Apparently not in the MoJ. As I blogged recently , the issue topped the list of concerns expressed by the Alan Beith-led select committee. Finally, May – despite her declaration – is planning to change the domestic violence rule in the immigration rules. It enables people who are on a spouse or partner visa and experiencing domestic violence to be able to leave that relationship and apply for indefinite leave. According to the immigration minister Damian Green, 700 victims of domestic violence rely upon it every year. The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association tells me the figure could be as high as 1,500. In a letter to the ILPA, Green says the UK Border Agency will continue to provide leave when needed to help protect women and girls “but settlement will not be automatic”. “For the very small number of cases of minor unspent criminality which would lead to a refusal under these rules, we will take a case-by-case approach.” Well, the numbers might be small, but that misses the point. “One person remaining in an abusive situation is one too many,” says the ILPA’s Alison Harvey. She believes it is “nothing short of astonishing” that a part of the Home Office is “allowed to rewrite the immigration rules” creating a risk for those in abusive relationships. “UKBA may say that it will look carefully at applications, but to no avail. The way the rules have been rewritten means that those survivors will not make the applications in the first place.” Joined-up government? I don’t think so. Jon Robins is a freelance journalist and director of the research company Jures , which runs the Justice Gap series examining different aspects of justice. It will publish a collection of essays with the Advice Services Alliance on public legal education next month Domestic violence Keir Starmer Legal aid UK criminal justice Women Jon Robins guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Peace campaigner loses attempt to appeal against mayor’s possession order, but can move tent on to pavement The veteran peace campaigner Brian Haw faces eviction from an area of grass in Parliament Square Gardens after losing an attempt to launch a legal challenge against a possession order granted to the mayor of London. Haw’s longstanding presence on the pavement on the east side of Parliament Square is not, however, threatened by the order, which relates to his encroachment on to a small adjoining part of the gardens where he has pitched a tent. Haw has come under pressure to quit his decade-old protest just metres from Westminster Abbey as the royal wedding approaches. After the appeal attempt was lost, co-campaigner Barbara Tucker said she did not believe the eviction had anything to do with clearing the area for the royal wedding – “it is about getting rid of our peace campaign”. Last month, the mayor, Boris Johnson, won a high court possession order to evict Haw and Tucker. Rejecting the application at the court of appeal, the master of the rolls, Lord Neuberger, and Lady Justice Smith ruled there was “no prospect” of any appeal being successful. They said the mayor was entitled to his order for possession without any further delay as “justice delayed is justice denied”. Tucker interrupted Neuberger as he gave his judgment, saying: “This is a cover-up. Are you finished now?” She and several supporters walked out of court as Smith announced that she agreed the application should be dismissed. Haw is being treated for lung cancer in Germany. Mr Justice Wyn Williams last month granted an order for possession and an injunction against Haw, from Redditch, Worcestershire, and Tucker, but the orders were not to be put in place until after any appeal. All Haw and Tucker have to do now, however, having lost the right to appeal, is to move their tents from the green, owned by the Greater London Authority, to the pavement, which is owned by Westminster council. The prime minister, the home secretary and the mayor of London have all vowed to clear the pavement of protesters before Kate Middleton and Prince William marry on 29 April, but so far have found no legal power that allows them to do so. The high court judge ruled: “Parliament Square Gardens [PSG] is not a suitable location for prolonged camping; such camping is incompatible with the function, lawful use and character of PSG and it is also inconsistent with the proper management of the area as a whole.” He said the campaigners’ tents and placards were occupying more space than was permitted. The pair would be allowed use of a three-metre length of kerb to display placards as that had been a part of the protest for several years, the judge said. Last July, bailiffs and police evicted demonstrators from Democracy Village – the scattering of tents, placards and home-made police boxes set up in the square in May 2010 – after the mayor was granted a possession order for the site, citing vandalism. However, the court remitted the question of whether it was reasonable and proportionate to enforce orders against Haw, whose decade-long presence on the pavement on the east side of Parliament Square was not challenged, except for his encroachment on to a small part of the gardens. Westminster council has launched legal action against protesters who occupied the footpath after being evicted from the green last year. Protest London politics Boris Johnson London Karen McVeigh guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Peace campaigner loses attempt to appeal against mayor’s possession order, but can move tent on to pavement The veteran peace campaigner Brian Haw faces eviction from an area of grass in Parliament Square Gardens after losing an attempt to launch a legal challenge against a possession order granted to the mayor of London. Haw’s longstanding presence on the pavement on the east side of Parliament Square is not, however, threatened by the order, which relates to his encroachment on to a small adjoining part of the gardens where he has pitched a tent. Haw has come under pressure to quit his decade-old protest just metres from Westminster Abbey as the royal wedding approaches. After the appeal attempt was lost, co-campaigner Barbara Tucker said she did not believe the eviction had anything to do with clearing the area for the royal wedding – “it is about getting rid of our peace campaign”. Last month, the mayor, Boris Johnson, won a high court possession order to evict Haw and Tucker. Rejecting the application at the court of appeal, the master of the rolls, Lord Neuberger, and Lady Justice Smith ruled there was “no prospect” of any appeal being successful. They said the mayor was entitled to his order for possession without any further delay as “justice delayed is justice denied”. Tucker interrupted Neuberger as he gave his judgment, saying: “This is a cover-up. Are you finished now?” She and several supporters walked out of court as Smith announced that she agreed the application should be dismissed. Haw is being treated for lung cancer in Germany. Mr Justice Wyn Williams last month granted an order for possession and an injunction against Haw, from Redditch, Worcestershire, and Tucker, but the orders were not to be put in place until after any appeal. All Haw and Tucker have to do now, however, having lost the right to appeal, is to move their tents from the green, owned by the Greater London Authority, to the pavement, which is owned by Westminster council. The prime minister, the home secretary and the mayor of London have all vowed to clear the pavement of protesters before Kate Middleton and Prince William marry on 29 April, but so far have found no legal power that allows them to do so. The high court judge ruled: “Parliament Square Gardens [PSG] is not a suitable location for prolonged camping; such camping is incompatible with the function, lawful use and character of PSG and it is also inconsistent with the proper management of the area as a whole.” He said the campaigners’ tents and placards were occupying more space than was permitted. The pair would be allowed use of a three-metre length of kerb to display placards as that had been a part of the protest for several years, the judge said. Last July, bailiffs and police evicted demonstrators from Democracy Village – the scattering of tents, placards and home-made police boxes set up in the square in May 2010 – after the mayor was granted a possession order for the site, citing vandalism. However, the court remitted the question of whether it was reasonable and proportionate to enforce orders against Haw, whose decade-long presence on the pavement on the east side of Parliament Square was not challenged, except for his encroachment on to a small part of the gardens. Westminster council has launched legal action against protesters who occupied the footpath after being evicted from the green last year. Protest London politics Boris Johnson London Karen McVeigh guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Peace campaigner loses attempt to appeal against mayor’s possession order, but can move tent on to pavement The veteran peace campaigner Brian Haw faces eviction from an area of grass in Parliament Square Gardens after losing an attempt to launch a legal challenge against a possession order granted to the mayor of London. Haw’s longstanding presence on the pavement on the east side of Parliament Square is not, however, threatened by the order, which relates to his encroachment on to a small adjoining part of the gardens where he has pitched a tent. Haw has come under pressure to quit his decade-old protest just metres from Westminster Abbey as the royal wedding approaches. After the appeal attempt was lost, co-campaigner Barbara Tucker said she did not believe the eviction had anything to do with clearing the area for the royal wedding – “it is about getting rid of our peace campaign”. Last month, the mayor, Boris Johnson, won a high court possession order to evict Haw and Tucker. Rejecting the application at the court of appeal, the master of the rolls, Lord Neuberger, and Lady Justice Smith ruled there was “no prospect” of any appeal being successful. They said the mayor was entitled to his order for possession without any further delay as “justice delayed is justice denied”. Tucker interrupted Neuberger as he gave his judgment, saying: “This is a cover-up. Are you finished now?” She and several supporters walked out of court as Smith announced that she agreed the application should be dismissed. Haw is being treated for lung cancer in Germany. Mr Justice Wyn Williams last month granted an order for possession and an injunction against Haw, from Redditch, Worcestershire, and Tucker, but the orders were not to be put in place until after any appeal. All Haw and Tucker have to do now, however, having lost the right to appeal, is to move their tents from the green, owned by the Greater London Authority, to the pavement, which is owned by Westminster council. The prime minister, the home secretary and the mayor of London have all vowed to clear the pavement of protesters before Kate Middleton and Prince William marry on 29 April, but so far have found no legal power that allows them to do so. The high court judge ruled: “Parliament Square Gardens [PSG] is not a suitable location for prolonged camping; such camping is incompatible with the function, lawful use and character of PSG and it is also inconsistent with the proper management of the area as a whole.” He said the campaigners’ tents and placards were occupying more space than was permitted. The pair would be allowed use of a three-metre length of kerb to display placards as that had been a part of the protest for several years, the judge said. Last July, bailiffs and police evicted demonstrators from Democracy Village – the scattering of tents, placards and home-made police boxes set up in the square in May 2010 – after the mayor was granted a possession order for the site, citing vandalism. However, the court remitted the question of whether it was reasonable and proportionate to enforce orders against Haw, whose decade-long presence on the pavement on the east side of Parliament Square was not challenged, except for his encroachment on to a small part of the gardens. Westminster council has launched legal action against protesters who occupied the footpath after being evicted from the green last year. Protest London politics Boris Johnson London Karen McVeigh guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Article by WorldNews.com Correspondent Dallas Darling. This week the world, especially Russia, celebrated a great technological achievement that occurred on April 12, 1961. Yuri Gagarin became the first known human to enter outer space, when his Vostok 1 spacecraft orbited Earth. In one sense, it reflected humanities longing to manipulate and control the environment, including humankinds curiosity to explore the unknown world and universe. In another way, though, Russia’s space capsule, that survived the hostilities of time and space, mirrored conflicts taking place back on Earth between the United States and Soviet Union. Vostok 1 was actually developed in a Cold War atmosphere of mistrust,…
Continue reading …
We make hundreds, even thousands of decisions every day. Some are easy (like what to have for breakfast, or what to wear to work), while some are much harder (like how to spend money or educate our children). We know that without a good night’s sleep, making those tough decisions is even more difficult, though everyone from business executives to politicians often makes important decisions on too little sleep. The one place we really should try to make sure we have a good night’s sleep before we make any decisions is Las Vegas — or any casino, for that matter. A new study suggests that beyond leading to poor decision making, sleep deprivation actually makes us more optimistic in our judgments, particularly those about money. Researchers at Duke University studied healthy volunteers as they underwent functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and found that the less the participants slept, the more likely they were to focus on potential gains and ignore potential risks. It isn’t that we’re just too tired to make the right choice; sleep deprivation actually changes the way that our brains process information. Lack of sleep makes us: More sensitive to positive outcomes More likely to pay attention to the upside Less aware of possible negative outcomes, making it easy to ignore the possibility of losing This could be why when people stay up all night playing cards and gambling, they take crazy risks that they shouldn’t take, and maybe wouldn’t take if they were well rested! This could also hold true for people staying up all night on online gaming sites: the later you stay up, the more focused you become on the possibility of winning big (and less focused on the possibility of losing big). It also explains why casinos often have flashing lights, free alcohol, and late hours — they are all designed to make you stay longer and as you become more and more sleep deprived, make bigger and riskier gambles. Trying to make important decisions without a good night’s sleep could lead to many problems: Bad mood, which can lead to poorer decisions and even worse mood An inability to think clearly and rationally Abuse of caffeine Preference for a decision that looks like it will lead to financial gains, no matter how risky it may be This optimism in judgment is not limited to money; the researchers in the study write that doctors and medical residents who work long hours are more likely to make mistakes, and it’s easy to see how making decisions that look positive despite the risks could be problematic for lawyers, bankers and those in the military. The truth is that no good decision can be made by anyone with that much sleep deprivation. Do you consider how much sleep you’ve gotten before you make important decisions? Having a clear and well-rested head is important for any big budgeting decision you make — and for those trips to Vegas. Want to avoid losing it all? Try resting up before you place your bet or make that big decision. Get the rest you need and make sure your optimism is well founded. Sweet dreams, Michael J. Breus, Ph.D. The Sleep Doctor™ “Everything you do, you do better with a good night’s sleep”™ Twitter: @thesleepdoctor Facebook: www.facebook.com/thesleepdoctor
Continue reading …Jon Stewart Praises Bill O’Reilly For Refuting Birthers Trump, Bachmann <![CDATA[&]]> Palin (VIDEO)
April 15, 2011 No Comment![Jon Stewart Praises Bill O’Reilly For Refuting Birthers Trump, Bachmann <![CDATA[&]]> Palin (VIDEO)](https://newsbreakingonline.com/wp-content/themes/transcript/timthumb.php?src=%3Cimg+src%3D%22http%3A%2F%2Fnewsbreakingonline.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F04%2Fb42e4221faY-mini.jpg.jpg%22+%2F%3E&q=90&w=190&h=100&zc=1 "Jon Stewart Praises Bill O’Reilly For Refuting Birthers Trump, Bachmann <![CDATA[&]]> Palin (VIDEO)")
Jon Stewart had a special moment on Wednesday night’s “Daily Show,” where he actually tipped his hat to his favorite Fox News target Bill O’Reilly for refuting “Birther” claims by Donald Trump, Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. Palin and Bachmann have long been speculating that there is something about President Obama’s birth certificate that he is trying to hide, despite mounds of evidence to the contrary. For instance, Obama had birth announcements in local Hawaii newspapers and has a passport which you need a birth certificate to obtain. Bachmann did give him the benefit of the doubt, but only said she’d “take his word for it” about being born here. “You don’t accept gravity because you take Newton’s word for it,” Stewart joked. But Donald Trump is the real Birther of the moment, who recently came out as such and actually sent paid researchers to Hawaii to investigate Obama’s birth. Stewart had a field day mocking Trump’s hard working “researchers” before asking if there was anyone who could throw us a rope in this crazy hole? Surprisingly, O’Reilly was the one to throw that rope, in a segment where he refuted not just the “Birther B.S.” as Stewart put it, “But all the Obama-based Internet B.S.” about his college days, his mother, his wife and more. Watch the full segment below to see Stewart’s flabbergasted look when O’Reilly suggests obama be “treated honestly,” and hear his praise for the Fox News host’s sanity. WATCH: The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon – Thurs 11p / 10cTales of Principled Behavior – Obama Birth Certificate Mysterywww.thedailyshow.comDaily Show Full EpisodesPolitical Humor & Satire BlogThe Daily Show on Facebook
Continue reading …Jon Stewart Praises Bill O’Reilly For Refuting Birthers Trump, Bachmann <![CDATA[&]]> Palin (VIDEO)
April 15, 2011 No CommentJon Stewart had a special moment on Wednesday night’s “Daily Show,” where he actually tipped his hat to his favorite Fox News target Bill O’Reilly for refuting “Birther” claims by Donald Trump, Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. Palin and Bachmann have long been speculating that there is something about President Obama’s birth certificate that he is trying to hide, despite mounds of evidence to the contrary. For instance, Obama had birth announcements in local Hawaii newspapers and has a passport which you need a birth certificate to obtain. Bachmann did give him the benefit of the doubt, but only said she’d “take his word for it” about being born here. “You don’t accept gravity because you take Newton’s word for it,” Stewart joked. But Donald Trump is the real Birther of the moment, who recently came out as such and actually sent paid researchers to Hawaii to investigate Obama’s birth. Stewart had a field day mocking Trump’s hard working “researchers” before asking if there was anyone who could throw us a rope in this crazy hole? Surprisingly, O’Reilly was the one to throw that rope, in a segment where he refuted not just the “Birther B.S.” as Stewart put it, “But all the Obama-based Internet B.S.” about his college days, his mother, his wife and more. Watch the full segment below to see Stewart’s flabbergasted look when O’Reilly suggests obama be “treated honestly,” and hear his praise for the Fox News host’s sanity. WATCH: The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon – Thurs 11p / 10cTales of Principled Behavior – Obama Birth Certificate Mysterywww.thedailyshow.comDaily Show Full EpisodesPolitical Humor & Satire BlogThe Daily Show on Facebook
Continue reading …Jon Stewart Praises Bill O’Reilly For Refuting Birthers Trump, Bachmann <![CDATA[&]]> Palin (VIDEO)
April 15, 2011 No CommentJon Stewart had a special moment on Wednesday night’s “Daily Show,” where he actually tipped his hat to his favorite Fox News target Bill O’Reilly for refuting “Birther” claims by Donald Trump, Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. Palin and Bachmann have long been speculating that there is something about President Obama’s birth certificate that he is trying to hide, despite mounds of evidence to the contrary. For instance, Obama had birth announcements in local Hawaii newspapers and has a passport which you need a birth certificate to obtain. Bachmann did give him the benefit of the doubt, but only said she’d “take his word for it” about being born here. “You don’t accept gravity because you take Newton’s word for it,” Stewart joked. But Donald Trump is the real Birther of the moment, who recently came out as such and actually sent paid researchers to Hawaii to investigate Obama’s birth. Stewart had a field day mocking Trump’s hard working “researchers” before asking if there was anyone who could throw us a rope in this crazy hole? Surprisingly, O’Reilly was the one to throw that rope, in a segment where he refuted not just the “Birther B.S.” as Stewart put it, “But all the Obama-based Internet B.S.” about his college days, his mother, his wife and more. Watch the full segment below to see Stewart’s flabbergasted look when O’Reilly suggests obama be “treated honestly,” and hear his praise for the Fox News host’s sanity. WATCH: The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon – Thurs 11p / 10cTales of Principled Behavior – Obama Birth Certificate Mysterywww.thedailyshow.comDaily Show Full EpisodesPolitical Humor & Satire BlogThe Daily Show on Facebook
Continue reading …