[QUOTE=kathyloveswsu;51504]Aired Nov. 19 - You and your show were sooooo taken by Brittany Brett, who claimed her husband and her had fallen on hard times and needed money. She was then presented with a check for $25,000. Brittany Brett claimed her husband, Jeremy, works 65 hours a week and only has $25 a month to feed themselves and their baby. First of all, if Jeremy works 65 hours a week, why is he at an Ellen show in L.A. and not working where they live in Spokane, Washington? We know this couple and it is such a lie that you fell for. I hope their LDS faith is proud. What upsets me is, there are couples WHO really do need the money - you were conned and fell for it. Maybe a little research needs to be done before you hand out $25,000 or give it to me!

Thank's for sharing this
This is really interesting

hey ellen, i want 2to ask u big favour? maybe u can help me out,,, thans

That's a smart point...for sure

I gotta say that is a good post

Excellent site guys! great work!

xtwvfj rdncwi gxybp ualgfyjsn hxpcrynl xojvfpi azhexgd

To Ellen, Rosie, Whoopi, Johan Behar & Anderson Cooper & To The United Nations & Amesty International, Gloria Allred, Bill Gates, Sir Michael Brandson, Jim Buffett, Father Michael Pfleger, Rev Jessie Jackson, Sr., Barack Obama, Hillary Clinten, John Mccain & all other govermential officials and/or humanitarians who will reach out to our U.S. Government to FORCE them to change/amend our existing laws/applicable laws changed & enforced to give us some legal rights so that we are truly protected. Because right now attorneys will not take our cases Ellen Pls make absolutely certain that they all get this open letter/email, but pls guard my personal idenity for my own protection:

Pls post this entire email message without identifying me specifically. Please not post my email address because the racist/homophobic/transexual hate & etc backlash could possibly lead to death threats on my life, and adverse actions in furtherance of my early demise/murder.

Please read all of the information provided below and you will see how the Federal Government rather recently specifically and intentionally excluded transsexuals from the protected classes category with respect to employment & other forms of discrimination. This info was exerpted from the public domain of Nancy Pelosi's (Madam Speaker of the house of Respresentatives) website (civil rights/ transexuals = NONE!) PLS Help Us!

Transsexuals have absolutely NO Legal Rights Whatsoever, & our American government plans to keep it that way...
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act
On November 7th, the House passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), H.R. 3685. In 30 states, it is currently legal to fire someone simply because of his or her sexual orientation. This bill will prohibit employers, employment agencies and labor unions from using an individual’s sexual orientation as the basis for employment decisions, such as hiring, firing, promotion or compensation. The bill extends federal employment protections to gay, lesbian, and bisexual workers similar to those already provided to a person based on race, religion, sex, national origin, age or disability. A manager’s amendment has also been made in order. Following are highlights of the manager’s amendment and bill.

The Manager’s Amendment

Clarifies the religious exemption under ENDA to address concerns raised by certain religious schools. The manager’s amendment makes clear that the exemption under ENDA for religious organizations is identical to the religious exemption found in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Under Title VII, religious corporations, schools, associations, and societies are exempt from religious discrimination claims. This Title VII exemption applies to both denominational and non-denominational religious schools. By ensuring that the ENDA religious exemption is identical to the Title VII religious exemption, the manager’s amendment clarifies that both denominational and non-denominational religious schools qualify for the ENDA exemption.

Clarifies that ENDA does not alter the Defense of Marriage Act. The manager’s amendment also clarifies that ENDA does not alter the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in any way. Indeed, the amendment inserts language clarifying that the term “married” has the meaning given such term in DOMA, directly incorporating DOMA’s definition of marriage as that between a man and a woman.

The Bill

Why ENDA is needed. In 30 states, it is legal to fire someone simply because of his or her sexual orientation. Numerous recent studies have found that employment discrimination based on sexual orientation continues in our country. For example, a 2007 study found that 16 percent of lesbians and gay men reported being fired or denied a job because of sexual orientation.

What ENDA does. The bill prohibits employers, employment agencies and labor unions from using an individual’s sexual orientation as the basis for employment decisions, such as hiring, firing, promotion or compensation. In other words, the bill is extending federal employment protections to gay, lesbian and bisexual workers similar to those protections already provided to a person based on race, religion, sex, national origin, age or disability.

Where ENDA applies. Like other civil rights laws, ENDA applies to private sector employers with 15 or more employees, employment agencies, labor organizations, and joint labor-management committees. ENDA also applies to Congress and the federal government, as well as state and local governments.

Where ENDA does not apply. ENDA does not apply to employers with fewer than 15 employees. It also does not apply to members of the armed forces. In addition, ENDA excludes private membership clubs and religious organizations, such as religious corporations, associations, and schools. ENDA uses Title VII’s definition of a religious organization, such that if an organization is exempt from Title VII’s religious discrimination prohibitions, it will be exempt from ENDA’s prohibitions.

How ENDA works. ENDA authorizes the same enforcement powers, procedures and remedies that exist under current federal employment discrimination laws such as Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act. All individual relief that is available under Title VII is available under ENDA. However, unlike Title VII protections, ENDA does not allow an individual to bring a “disparate impact” claim. In addition, ENDA does not allow for affirmative action or quotas based on sexual orientation.

Bringing this nondiscrimination bill to the House Floor is an historic occasion. This bill has been introduced in every Congress since 1975. In the 94th Congress, on January 14, 1975, Rep. Bella Abzug (D-NY) introduced the first bill to prohibit sexual-orientation discrimination. And in every Congress since then, legislation prohibiting sexual-orientation discrimination has been introduced. However, this year, Congress is making history. The October 18th vote by the Education and Labor Committee to report this bill to the floor was the first vote ever taken on this critical legislation in the House of Representatives.

As evidence that nondiscrimination is good for business, many companies have voluntarily adopted nondiscrimination policies. A 2007 Human Rights Campaign survey found that 90 percent of Fortune 500 companies have already adopted sexual orientation nondiscrimination policies. Indeed, many major American companies – including General Mills, Microsoft, Citibank, and Morgan Stanley – have expressed their strong support for legislation that outlaws discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

While many supporters are disappointed the bill is not fully-inclusive, they recognize it is a significant achievement. Many supporters are disappointed that the bill is not broader – by not also prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of gender identity. However, they recognize that progress in civil rights has always been incremental and that this legislation is a critical step forward.
{January 9, 2008 This Page & The Next Two Were Excerpted From Nancy Pelosi’s (Speaker of the House of Reps) Blog}

Rep. Barney Frank (MA-04) explains the rule governing debate:
Rep. Frank: “When people who are opposed to the basic bill and opposed to the amendment, lament the chance not to vote on an amendment which would undermine the bill, people should understand where we are. I filed the bill that included people who are transgendered. Earlier this year, I was very proud when this House passed a Hate Crimes bill that included transgender… The question we have is this: if we do not have the votes to go forward with as much as we would like to do, do we then abandon any effort, and do we allow those who are opposed to any progress at all in the anti-discrimination fight in this area to use a particular group as a way to prevent progress?”
Rep. Tammy Baldwin (WI-02) explained why she introduced, and then withdrew her amendment adding inclusion for the transgendered community:
Rep. Baldwin: “But while I believe that a roll call vote on this amendment would demonstrate strong support for an inclusive ENDA, I believe that it will fall short of adoption. People have asked why I pressed for and insisted upon bringing an amendment to the floor and maintaining the option to withdraw it without a vote. The reason is simple. I believe that those who will be left behind by this bill deserve to hear on this House floor that you are not forgotten, and our job will not be finished until you, too, share fully in the American dream. So at
the moment at which the closing arguments are made, I will withdraw this amendment. With a commitment to my colleagues and all Americans committed to equality of opportunity, and ending discrimination, that I will do everything within my power to make this measure whole again.”
Rep. Barney Frank (MA-04) denounces the motion to recommit from the Republicans, which contains redundant language on marriage but would intentionally kill the bill by delay:
Rep. Frank: “I want to address the motion to delay. Mr. Speaker, we say here that we don’t take things personally, and usually that’s true. Members, Mr. Speaker, will have to forgive me — I take it personally. 35 years ago, I filed a bill that tried to get rid of discrimination based on sexual orientation. As we sit here...

Please read all of the information provided below and you will see how the Federal Government rather recently specifically and intentionally excluded transsexuals from the protected classes category with respect to employment & other forms of discrimination.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act
On November 7th, the House passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), H.R. 3685. In 30 states, it is currently legal to fire someone simply because of his or her sexual orientation. This bill will prohibit employers, employment agencies and labor unions from using an individual’s sexual orientation as the basis for employment decisions, such as hiring, firing, promotion or compensation. The bill extends federal employment protections to gay, lesbian, and bisexual workers similar to those already provided to a person based on race, religion, sex, national origin, age or disability. A manager’s amendment has also been made in order. Following are highlights of the manager’s amendment and bill.

The Manager’s Amendment

Clarifies the religious exemption under ENDA to address concerns raised by certain religious schools. The manager’s amendment makes clear that the exemption under ENDA for religious organizations is identical to the religious exemption found in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Under Title VII, religious corporations, schools, associations, and societies are exempt from religious discrimination claims. This Title VII exemption applies to both denominational and non-denominational religious schools. By ensuring that the ENDA religious exemption is identical to the Title VII religious exemption, the manager’s amendment clarifies that both denominational and non-denominational religious schools qualify for the ENDA exemption.

Clarifies that ENDA does not alter the Defense of Marriage Act. The manager’s amendment also clarifies that ENDA does not alter the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in any way. Indeed, the amendment inserts language clarifying that the term “married” has the meaning given such term in DOMA, directly incorporating DOMA’s definition of marriage as that between a man and a woman.

The Bill

Why ENDA is needed. In 30 states, it is legal to fire someone simply because of his or her sexual orientation. Numerous recent studies have found that employment discrimination based on sexual orientation continues in our country. For example, a 2007 study found that 16 percent of lesbians and gay men reported being fired or denied a job because of sexual orientation.

What ENDA does. The bill prohibits employers, employment agencies and labor unions from using an individual’s sexual orientation as the basis for employment decisions, such as hiring, firing, promotion or compensation. In other words, the bill is extending federal employment protections to gay, lesbian and bisexual workers similar to those protections already provided to a person based on race, religion, sex, national origin, age or disability.

Where ENDA applies. Like other civil rights laws, ENDA applies to private sector employers with 15 or more employees, employment agencies, labor organizations, and joint labor-management committees. ENDA also applies to Congress and the federal government, as well as state and local governments.

Where ENDA does not apply. ENDA does not apply to employers with fewer than 15 employees. It also does not apply to members of the armed forces. In addition, ENDA excludes private membership clubs and religious organizations, such as religious corporations, associations, and schools. ENDA uses Title VII’s definition of a religious organization, such that if an organization is exempt from Title VII’s religious discrimination prohibitions, it will be exempt from ENDA’s prohibitions.

How ENDA works. ENDA authorizes the same enforcement powers, procedures and remedies that exist under current federal employment discrimination laws such as Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act. All individual relief that is available under Title VII is available under ENDA. However, unlike Title VII protections, ENDA does not allow an individual to bring a “disparate impact” claim. In addition, ENDA does not allow for affirmative action or quotas based on sexual orientation.

Bringing this nondiscrimination bill to the House Floor is an historic occasion. This bill has been introduced in every Congress since 1975. In the 94th Congress, on January 14, 1975, Rep. Bella Abzug (D-NY) introduced the first bill to prohibit sexual-orientation discrimination. And in every Congress since then, legislation prohibiting sexual-orientation discrimination has been introduced. However, this year, Congress is making history. The October 18th vote by the Education and Labor Committee to report this bill to the floor was the first vote ever taken on this critical legislation in the House of Representatives.

As evidence that nondiscrimination is good for business, many companies have voluntarily adopted nondiscrimination policies. A 2007 Human Rights Campaign survey found that 90 percent of Fortune 500 companies have already adopted sexual orientation nondiscrimination policies. Indeed, many major American companies – including General Mills, Microsoft, Citibank, and Morgan Stanley – have expressed their strong support for legislation that outlaws discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

While many supporters are disappointed the bill is not fully-inclusive, they recognize it is a significant achievement. Many supporters are disappointed that the bill is not broader – by not also prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of gender identity. However, they recognize that progress in civil rights has always been incremental and that this legislation is a critical step forward.
{January 9, 2008 This Page & The Next Two Were Excerpted From Nancy Pelosi’s (Speaker of the House of Reps) Blog}

Rep. Barney Frank (MA-04) explains the rule governing debate:
Rep. Frank: “When people who are opposed to the basic bill and opposed to the amendment, lament the chance not to vote on an amendment which would undermine the bill, people should understand where we are. I filed the bill that included people who are transgendered. Earlier this year, I was very proud when this House passed a Hate Crimes bill that included transgender… The question we have is this: if we do not have the votes to go forward with as much as we would like to do, do we then abandon any effort, and do we allow those who are opposed to any progress at all in the anti-discrimination fight in this area to use a particular group as a way to prevent progress?”

Rep. Tammy Baldwin (WI-02) explained why she introduced, and then withdrew her amendment adding inclusion for the transgendered community:
Rep. Baldwin: “But while I believe that a roll call vote on this amendment would demonstrate strong support for an inclusive ENDA, I believe that it will fall short of adoption. People have asked why I pressed for and insisted upon bringing an amendment to the floor and maintaining the option to withdraw it without a vote. The reason is simple. I believe that those who will be left behind by this bill deserve to hear on this House floor that you are not forgotten, and our job will not be finished until you, too, share fully in the American dream. So at the moment at which the closing arguments are made, I will withdraw this amendment. With a commitment to my colleagues and all Americans committed to equality of opportunity, and ending discrimination, that I will do everything within my power to make this measure whole again.”
Rep. Barney Frank (MA-04) denounces the motion to recommit from the Republicans, which contains redundant language on marriage but would intentionally kill the bill by delay:
Rep. Frank: “I want to address the motion to delay. Mr. Speaker, we say here that we don’t take things personally, and usually that’s true. Members, Mr. Speaker, will have to forgive me — I take it personally. 35 years ago, I filed a bill that tried to get rid of discrimination based on sexual orientation. As we sit here today, there are millions of Americans in states where this is not the law. By the way, 19 states have such a law. In no case has it led to that decision. The Massachusetts law passed in 1989, that did not lead to the decision in 2004, unrelated. But here’s the deal: I used to be someone subject to this prejudice. And through luck, circumstance, I got to be a big shot. I’m now above that prejudice. But I feel an obligation, to 15-year-olds dreading to go to school because of the torments, to people they’ll lose their job in a gas station if someone finds out who they love. I feel an obligation to use the status I have been lucky enough to get, to help them. And I want to ask my colleagues here, Mr. Speaker, on a personal basis, please don’t fall for this sham. Don’t send me out of here having failed to help those people.”

House Debates ENDA
Wednesday, November 7th, 2007 by Jesse Lee
The House has begun debate on the rule for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), H.R. 3685, to be followed by debate on the bill itself. In 30 states, it is currently legal to fire someone simply because of his or her sexual orientation. This bill will prohibit employers, employment agencies and labor unions from using an individual’s sexual orientation as the basis for employment decisions, such as hiring, firing, promotion or compensation. The bill extends federal employment protections to gay, lesbian, and bisexual workers similar to those already provided to a person based on race, religion, sex, national origin, age or disability.
Read more in our current legislation section >>

Rep. Kathy Castor (FL-11) opens debate on the rule:
Rep. Castor: “During the 230-year-plus history of our great nation, the march towards equality under the law for all of our citizens has sometimes been slow. But it has been steady… This legislation that outlaws job discrimination based upon sexual orientation that the Congress will pass today was filed and introduced over 30 years ago. It is long past time to ensure that no one in our country can be discriminated against and fired from their job based upon who they are, whether it’s their race, their color, whether they are man or woman, or whether they are gay.”

Rep. Anthony Weiner (NY-09) speaks in favor the rule and the bill:

Rep. Weiner: “I’m waiting for some true intellectually consistent members of the other party, who understand that in their mantra of government staying out of people’s private lives, in their mantra of allowing the marketplace to work, allowing people to be judged by their hard work, by their tenacity, by their skill — I’m waiting for those people to come to the floor and say that we believe in ENDA. We believe in the idea of not government selecting who is going to win, but letting the marketplace do it. We believe in our friends in the private sector, 350 or so Fortune 500 companies that already practice ENDA that we are going to be voting on today. Where are they? Where are those members of my colleagues’ party that are shamed by their record on Civil Rights throughout the years, and want to make it right now?”
Rep. Barney Frank (MA-04) speaks again during debate on the bill itself:
Rep. Frank: “Madam Speaker, I was accused in the last campaign by a former member of this body of pursuing a radical homosexual agenda. Well here it is in the House today: Working. Getting a job.”
Extended transcript:
Rep. Frank: “Beforehand, we get the most absurd exaggerations of the chaotic impact it will have… if this were a problem, we would have examples of it. 19 states have laws like this on the books and how many examples have you had of the poor befuddled employer who is so unable to perceive, that he is put on the docket? None. This is a made up issue, made up by people who don’t want to confront the real issue. And here is the real issue. There are millions of our fellow citizens, Madam Speaker, gay or lesbian, who live in fear they could be fired because they live in states where there is no such protection. And we have had real examples of that. And what we say today is, no, you can’t be fired because of that… By the way, this notion of perceived, it is so unusual that it’s in the American with Disabilities Act and… So let’s not behind hide behind this semantic. That is not the genuine motivation for opposition to this bill on the part of anyone in this House. What they are saying is, we don’t want to protect working men and women from this. Madam Speaker, I was accused in the last campaign by a former member of this body of pursuing a radical homosexual agenda. Well here it is in the House today: Working. Getting a job.”
Rep. John Lewis (GA-05) speaks again during debate on the bill itself:

Rep. Lewis: “Madam Speaker, I for one fought too long and too hard to end discrimination based on race and color, not to stand up against discrimination against our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. During the 1960’s, we broke down those signs that said ‘white’ and ‘colored.’ Call it what you may, to discriminate against someone because they are gay is wrong, it is wrong, it is not right. There’s not any room in our society for discrimination. Today we must take this important step after more than 30 long years and pass the employment Employment Non-Discrimination Act. It is the right thing to do. It is the moral thing to do. Let us do it. Not just for this generation but for generations yet unborn. Today we have an opportunity to bring down more signs. Now is the time to do what is right, what is fair, what is just. The time is always right to do right. Let us pass this bill.”

Personal & Confidential: For Ellen DeGeneres & Gloria Allred’s Eyes Only!!!

February 13, 2008 sent via e-mail

Dear Ellen, I know that I have to trust somebody right now, or else I will go absolutely under. So please…I’m e-mailing all of the information for my book and personal & confidential outreach situations directly to you here and now, because you need to understand my full story here and now. Otherwise, it might be too late.

Anyway, I meant what I said about retaining ownership of all of my words and thoughts that I sent to you at about 5 or 6 AM this morning as well with regards to all of the information that I am transmitting to you now. Please communicate with Gloria Allred (the attorney at law) so that she might seriously consider gathering up and being a very major part of my legal team. Because the things that I am writing about concern not only me, they affect millions of other transsexuals across the United States of America. But again, all of the information/words to follow remain my sole and absolute property so that there will not be any issues whatsoever, when it comes time to get my book/movie/documentary and etc. I decided to send you all of my notations thus far, because time if of the essence, and the other people that I have written too thus far have not responded at all to my e-mails/faxes/U.S. Mail & etc. in most cases. I need an agent and an attorney to explain better. Well here it is provided below: Again, please form a coalition of attorneys & financiers and etc to that you can please help US ASAP! Ellen, thank you very much for your time and consideration in this matter, whether you help me or not, Yeah. Please also send me an autographed picture of you and an autographed copy of your book. Ellen, thanks again.

Heh Heh....

This is an Hilarious Truth! When People whisper to me, I can't help but feel irritated. Even in amidst a loud environment, I find myself Pulling the the "hush, shrug, and look in the other direction". It's beside the point that I can/can't hear. A whisper is a red flag. If someone needs to spit in your ear to make a comment; the comment is probably better left unsaid! This happens to be a one of my peeves.

-Sarah

Wow I was perusing the comments and I guess I was thinking they would be in regards to the ACTUAL BLOG topic.....call me crazy?

I am a definite, agreeable cohort on the whispering thing, I was brought up that it was inconsiderate BECAUSE it made people wonder if you were being a gossip. It was acceptable to whisper "I'm going to the restroom." and then go. Especially if you were some place that would discourage the loud announcing of an urgent call of nature. Unless you are three and have a cute lisp, then a simple "I haf ta go PEE!" is always good for a chuckle! An the grown-ups can always use the tension relief that forced quiet and the appearance of paying attention can cause!

Let's go back to whispering being rude! Unless it's short to the point and hey...how about....NOT RUDE?