Connect with us

Ben Carson: Being Gay Is ‘Absolutely’ A Choice, Because Prison (Video)

Published

on

Tea Party hero Dr. Ben Carson says being gay is a choice, because, he claims, straight people who go to prison leave gay.

Retired neurosurgeon, acclaimed author, Tea Party hero, and likely GOP presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson Wednesday morning on CNN said that being gay is “absolutely” a choice.

Carson, who this week formed a presidential exploratory committee, tossed out his decades of scientific study of human biology and reverted to non-scientific presumption to state that men who go to prison straight leave as gay. He claims that is a fact, and claims that “proves” homosexuality is not biological, but a choice, despite major medical associations claiming otherwise.

CNN’s Chris Cuomo brought up the subject of same-sex marriage, and asked Carson if being gay is a choice.

“Absolutely,” he replied.

“Because a lot of people who go into prison go into prison straight — and when they come out, they’re gay. So, did something happen while they were in there? Ask yourself that question,” Carson offered.

UPDATES: 

Ben Carson Apologizes And Makes ‘Liberal Press’ A Gay Rights Promise (Audio)

‘Insane’: What Experts Say About Dr. Ben Carson’s Claim That Prison Turns Men Gay

Carson is of course wrongly conflating the dire problem of prison rape with homosexuality.

Carson also insisted that just because Americans fixed wrongs in law and the Constitution, like slavery, does not mean that’s what’s happening now with same-sex marriage. And he insisted that same-sex couples do not have the right to marriage, nor should the “definition” of marriage be changed to include them.

“Why do gay people want to get married?,” he asked. “Why do they say they want to get married? Because they want to have various rights — property rights, visitation rights,” Carson said. “Why can’t any two human beings, I don’t care what their sexual orientation is, why can’t they have the legal right to do those things? That does not require changing the definition of marriage.”

That argument is fallacious and false. Same-sex couples need and deserve the rights, responsibilities, and protections marriage provides, as much as different-sex couples. Same-sex couples have often been denied those rights, even with the legal structures Carson suggests. 

More so, why should same-sex couples be treated any differently than different-sex couples? 

 

Image: Screenshot via CNN

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

NECESSARY USE OF FORCE?

Watch: Texas Police Pull Man Off Bike, Claim He’s ‘Resisting,’ Taser Him, After He Allegedly Runs a Red Light

Published

on

College Park and Texas A&M police on Wednesday were filmed pulling a man off his bicycle, tasering him after they claimed he was resisting, and handcuffing him, after the bicyclist allegedly ran a red light. That video went viral on social media sites, forcing police to issue a statement.

Local CBS affiliate KBTX reports that “a police officer forcibly removed the man from the bike and onto the sidewalk where he’s warned by the officers to stop resisting arrest.”

From the video the man does not appear to be resisting arrest once police forcibly removed him from his bicycle. The video (below) does not appear to capture the initial run through the red light or the initial police stop.

“A College Station police officer warned the man he would be tased if he didn’t stop resisting. Moments later the video shows the man being tased in the back as officers struggled to put him into handcuffs.”

The man is tasered in less than one minute of the officer, who appears violently angry, pulling him off the bike, and about 12 seconds after he is told, “you’re going to get tasered.”

“In a statement released to the public shortly after the arrest, College Station police said the 34-year-old man was arrested and charged with evading detention, resisting arrest, and resisting transport.”

None of those charges are crimes until the police are involved. In the video the man denies running a red light. The initial crime was allegedly running the light, is a simple traffic citation. one in many states is delegated to cameras. From the police statement, which they posted to Twitter, it does not appear he was cited for that violation.

Watch:

 

 

Continue Reading

News

Legal Expert: Bill Barr Faces Potential ‘Criminal Investigation’

Published

on

Judge Amy Berman Jackson, the federal judge who gave prison sentences to two of former President Donald Trump’s close allies — his 2016 campaign manager Paul Manafort and veteran GOP operative Roger Stone — was highly critical of former U.S. Attorney General William Barr in a recent ruling, describing his response to the Mueller Report as “disingenuous.” And legal expert Neal Katyal, who served as acting solicitor general under President Barack Obama, described Jackson’s comments as highly damning during an appearance on MSNBC’s “Deadline: White House” this week.

Host Nicolle Wallace, a Never Trump conservative who served as White House communications director under President George W. Bush, told Katyal that Barr “misrepresented” the “conclusions” that Barr reached after former Special Counsel Robert Mueller wrapped up the Russia investigation — asking Katyal to weigh in on the “political damage” that Barr did to the United States. And he responded that it gives him no pleasure to have been right when he appeared on MSNBC in 2019 and said that Barr was distorting the Mueller Report.

The 51-year-old Katyal told Wallace and Washington Post reporter Carol Leonnig — who also appeared as a guest — “I’m not sitting here feeling good about the fact that I and so many others were right two years ago. I mean, I desperately wanted to be wrong. And our system is set up to trust the attorney general. I mean, Barr was the attorney general of the United States, not the attorney general for President Trump. That’s what he was supposed to be — he was supposed to be for the people. But unfortunately, there was always a degree of corruption around him, and he constantly acted like one of Donald Trump’s personal attorneys.”

Katyal continued, “And now, with the new decision by the judge into his deception, he’s finally being treated like one of the gang — which he always was…. What you have in this decision by the judge yesterday — by Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who is a meticulous judge — is a statement that no, Barr actually lied to the court and to the American people. She called, you know, Barr’s actions, in the litigating position, disingenuous, which is something you almost never hear a federal judge say about any litigant — particularly not someone from the Justice Department and particularly not the attorney general of the United States.”

Katyal added that when a federal judge of Jackson’s stature describes one’s testimony before Congress as “disingenuous,” it’s “time to start thinking about retaining counsel, legal counsel.”

“There is the possibility of a criminal investigation into Bill Barr now,” Katyal told Wallace and Leonnig. “There’s also the possibility of civil and disciplinary actions against him as well.”

Continue Reading

News

Liz Cheney Secretly Organized Key Move to Block Trump From Using Military to Overturn Election: Report

Published

on

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) was the organizer of an open letter by all living former Defense Secretaries against the military intervening in election disputes.

The revelation was made to Susan Glasser of The New Yorker by Eric Edelman, a friend of Cheney’s who served as an advisor to her father.

“Cheney’s rupture with the House Republican Conference has become all but final in recent days, but it has been months in the making. Edelman revealed that Cheney herself secretly orchestrated an unprecedented op-ed in the Washington Post by all ten living former Defense Secretaries, including her father, warning against Trump’s efforts to politicize the military,” Glasser reported.

“The congresswoman not only recruited her father but personally asked others, including Trump’s first Defense Secretary, Jim Mattis, to participate. ‘She was the one who generated it, because she was so worried about what Trump might do,’ Edelman said. ‘It speaks to the degree that she was concerned about the threat to our democracy that Trump represented.’ The Post op-ed appeared on January 3rd, just three days before the insurrection at the Capitol,” she reported.

It wasn’t the only action she took.

“Little noticed at the time was another Cheney effort to combat Trump’s post-election lies, a twenty-one-page memo written by Cheney and her husband, Phil Perry, an attorney, and circulated on January 3rd to the entire House Republican Conference. In it, Cheney debunked Trump’s false claims about election fraud and warned her colleagues that voting to overturn the election results, as Trump was insisting, would ‘set an exceptionally dangerous precedent.’ But, of course, they did not listen. Even after the storming of the Capitol, a hundred and forty-seven Republican lawmakers voted against accepting the election results,” Glaser wrote.

The joint letter was signed by Ashton Carter, Dick Cheney, William Cohen, Mark Esper, Robert Gates, Chuck Hagel, James Mattis, Leon Panetta, William Perry and Donald Rumsfeld.

“American elections and the peaceful transfers of power that result are hallmarks of our democracy. With one singular and tragic exception that cost the lives of more Americans than all of our other wars combined, the United States has had an unbroken record of such transitions since 1789, including in times of partisan strife, war, epidemics and economic depression. This year should be no exception,” the former defense secretaries wrote.

“Our elections have occurred. Recounts and audits have been conducted. Appropriate challenges have been addressed by the courts. Governors have certified the results. And the electoral college has voted. The time for questioning the results has passed; the time for the formal counting of the electoral college votes, as prescribed in the Constitution and statute, has arrived,” they explained. “As senior Defense Department leaders have noted, ‘there’s no role for the U.S. military in determining the outcome of a U.S. election.’ Efforts to involve the U.S. armed forces in resolving election disputes would take us into dangerous, unlawful and unconstitutional territory. Civilian and military officials who direct or carry out such measures would be accountable, including potentially facing criminal penalties, for the grave consequences of their actions on our republic.”

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.