News Release – NOM Fires Miss California

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 16, 2009
Contact: Fred Karger
619-592-2008

November 16, 2009

Ms Maggie Gallagher
President
National Organization for Marriage
1100 H Street, NW, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005

Dear Maggie —

It looks like you fired former Miss California, Carrie Prejean, just like Donald Trump did back in June.

She is no longer on your web site: nationformarriage.org I called your Washington, DC – PR firm, Mary Beth Hutchins at 703-683-5004 ext. 105, but no one was there to tell me why.

What happened to *”the future of our movement, and the future of America,” as you referred to Carrie just two months ago? Was it because she lied again? This time she said in numerous interviews that she “made only one sex tape.” Now it appears to be more like 15 or 20. We just heard that from the guy she met on My Space.

He also said that Carrie asked him to lie and say that she was only 17 when she made the sex tapes. In an interview with TMZ’s Harvey Levin, her ex said that she made the tapes when she was from 19 to 21, so not that long ago like Carrie insists.

Listen for yourself, it’s really interesting how the two stories are so different. Here’s a link: TMZ

Wonder if her attorney, Charles LiMandri, knew that she was asking her ex to lie? That is not looked kindly upon by the California Bar Association.

In the past week, Carrie was uninvited from her speech at the Conservative Capitol Hill Club. Then she kept calling CNN’s Larry King “inappropriate,” and ripped her microphone off on live TV! It’s up on YouTube and has had over 1.5 million visitors so far – huge!

Here’s the link: Larry King

carrie_nom_website_425

NOM website

Why did you take her off your web site?

Did you hear from a lot of your high powered Board of Directors on this? What about your likely creator and largest backer, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon Church)? They gotta be uncomfortable with the whole multiple sex tapes thing.
You sure changed your tune, Maggie.

Do you remember what you said when Donald Trump fired Carrie? This is from your press release of June 10, 2009:

nom_small_logo

THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE RESPONDS TO THE FIRING OF MISS CALIFORNIA USA CARRIE PREJEAN:

(Princeton, NJ) – Today, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) issued the following statement in response to the firing Miss California USA Carrie Prejean:

“Hollywood hates Carrie. First they abuse her, then they try to get her to recant, then they threw mud, and now they are doing what they wanted to do from day one: Get rid of Carrie.

This cover story about a contract dispute doesn’t pass the smell test. Americans aren’t fooled that easily. God knows, and we know, the truth about Carrie: She’s a young woman of great beauty who chose truth over the glittering tiara that Hollywood offers,” said Brian Brown, Executive Director for NOM. “Of course they will try to punish her, but we know she will be fine in the end, because her values are in the right place.”

“Hollywood will dance its tribal war dance over her body–the hatred generated against her has been extraordinary–but Carrie will be free to define her own mission and message from now on. Congratulations,” stated Maggie Gallagher, President for NOM.

Guess she’s free again. Looks like Brian and you treated her worse than Hollywood did, and she’s on your side! They gave her a second and third chance. You threw her right under the bus.
I said it before, Maggie I feel sorry for Carrie. She is just a young woman trying to make something of her life.

You and all your friends are not very tolerant of your paid spokeswoman, the star of your commercials, and the future of your movement.

Carrie is not as she appeared, and was very dishonest, but she is only 22 years old. Brian Brown and you should learn from this, and soften your anger towards others, and treat everyone fairly.

Sincerely,

Fred Karger
Founder
Californians Against Hate

* From Maggie Gallagher’s September 18, 2009 introduction of Carrie Prejean, at Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council sponsored Voters Value Summit in Washington, DC.

Share

Letter to Maine Ethics Commission on the National Organization of Marriage from Michael B. Keegan

From: People for the American Way

October 30, 2009

Mr. Jonathan Wayne
Executive Director
Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices
135 State House Station
Augusta, Maine 04333

Dear Mr. Wayne,

I am writing you concerning misleading and inaccurate statements made by Brian Brown, Executive Director of the National Organization for Marriage, at the Commission’s October meeting pertaining to the disclosure of the organization’s 990 federal tax form. As you are aware, nonprofit organizations such as NOM are required by law to provide a redacted 990 upon request. This requirement is such a basic and widely accepted part of nonprofit management that there is rarely any sort of controversy surrounding the disclosure of 990s. NOM, however, is an exception.

The issue of NOM’s 2008 990 came before the Commission due to testimony by Fred Karger, founder of Califorians Against Hate, and Danielle Truszkovsky, a Florida-based political columnist. Both testified that NOM had refused to provide a copy of the 990. Mr. Brown, in response, categorically rejected the claims of Mr. Karger and Ms. Truszkovsky and testified that NOM had faithfully complied with federal disclosure requirements. However, the facts simply do not support Mr. Brown’s testimony.

NOM, according to Mr. Brown, filed its 2008 990 with the IRS on August 14, 2009 — one day before the August 15 deadline for groups, including NOM, that filed for an automatic extension. Per IRS regulations, the 990 “must be made available from the date it is required to be filed” — in this case, August 15. Yet when Lou Chibbaro, a veteran political reporter for the Washington Blade, interviewed Mr. Brown the following week and requested the 2008 990, Mr. Brown “promised to release to the Blade NOM’s 2007 IRS 990 finance reporting form and said the group would also release its 2008 990 form as soon as it completes its processing.” On August 28, Mr. Chibbaro visited NOM’s DC office and delivered a written request for the 990s. Mr. Brown called him back that day and informed him that his staff was still at work “processing” the form.

However, there is no such thing as a “processing” period beyond the filing deadline during which time an organization can refuse to disclose its 990. Furthermore, Mr. Chibbaro never received the 2008 990, nor was he notified when NOM suddenly posted the 990 on the web in the days leading up to the October Commission meeting.

Ms. Truszkovsky had a similar experience. She visited NOM’s DC office on September 1 and met personally with Mr. Brown. When she requested the 2008 990, she was told that it was not available. Ms. Truszkovsky never received the 990 from NOM and was also not notified when the form was posted online. Additionally, a representative of Californians Against Hate submitted a request via certified letter to NOM’s offices for the 990s, with the same outcome.

The experiences of these three individuals — and most likely others — directly refute Mr. Brown’s testimony. Mr. Brown said in response to Mr. Karger that it “is simply not the case” that “we refuse to disclose our financial records.” In response to Ms. Truszkovsky, he said “in fact, when journalists have asked, we’ve gotten [990s] out to them. At the time that some have requested our 2008 990, it wasn’t filed. So we cannot provide something that has not yet been filed.

“Then, when asked by Commissioner Walter McKee whether NOM’s 990s had been “provided every time it’s been asked for,” Mr. Brown said the following: “Many of these requests, if not all of them, included our 2008 990, and so once we had filed that, we would get all of the documents to them. Could some have been a little later than the 30 day window? Yes, if we did anything like that it would just have to do with the amount of processing.” He continued, “whenever we’ve been asked, we’ve attempted to comply, and mail them out, we’re not trying to hide them, we know our obligations, and we follow them.” Finally, in response to a question from Commissioner André Duchette, Mr. Brown replied that NOM was continuing to “comply if people write us letters before that time in sending them the 990 through the mail.

“But NOM did none of the above in response to multiple requests for the 2008 990. Ms. Truszkovsky and Mr. Chibbaro personally requested the 990 from Mr. Brown, and Mr. Chibbaro and Californians Against Hate requested the 990 in writing. Yet they never received the form, nor did NOM even notify them when the 990 was posted online. This does not appear to be an accident or an isolated instance of carelessness on the part of NOM. Indeed, the evidence clearly points to a concerted effort to conceal the organization’s finances for as long as possible and then to conceal the effort from the Commission.

We do not know what NOM hoped to gain by its actions, but this incident raises serious questions about NOM’s operations and leadership. We would therefore encourage the Commission to review and investigate the veractiy of Mr. Brown’s testimony.

Sincerely,
Michael B. Keegan
President
People For the American Way

CC: Commissioner Walter McKee
Commissioner André Duchette
Commissioner Michael Friedman
Commissioner Francis Marsano
Commissioner Edward Youngblood

Share

News Release: Federal Judge in Maine – NOM Must Abide by Election Law

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 28, 2009
CONTACT:
Fred Karger 619-592-2008

brian_maggie_truth

NOM Heads — Brian Brown (right) Administers a Lie Detector Test to NOM Chairman, the Infamous Maggie Gallagher (left)

NOM Must Report Contributors

AUGUSTA, MAINE – Californians Against Hate applauds the Federal Court and Justice D. Brock Hornby for its decision today upholding the Maine election law, and ruling in favor of truth and transparency.

The Washington, DC based National Organization for Marriage (NOM) challenged the law while it is under investigation by the Maine Ethics Commission for financial improprieties, reporting violations and money laundering. NOM is the biggest donor by far to Yes on 1, which would ban the recently enacted same-sex marriage law in the Pine Tree state. NOM gave 60% of the $2.6 million raised so far, but wants to keep its contributor’s names secret. Question 1 will be voted on next Tuesday, November 3rd.

NOM Shows Its True Colors

“In over 30 years in politics, I have never seen such a blatant disregard for the law as Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown are doing in Maine,” said Fred Karger, founder of Californians Against Hate. “They are up to their old tricks. They did the same thing in California when their apparent creator, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon Church) became the target of an investigation by that state’s Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). The FPPC began an unprecedented investigation of the Salt Lake City based Church (Case #08-735), and the National Organization for Marriage nearly one year ago. NOM sued every top election official in California in order to keep the contributors to last year’s Proposition 8 secret as well.”

Californians Against Hate asked the Maine Ethics Commission to investigate NOM in a formal request sent on August 24, 2009 to investigate the National Organization for Marriage. NOM had failed to disclose the names of any of its contributors as required by state law. Fred Karger and political columnist Danielle Truszkovsky testified in support of an investigation at the commission hearing in Augusta on October 1, 2009. The Commission voted to investigate NOM at that meeting. NOM’s reaction: sue Maine!

Assistant Attorney General Phyllis Gardiner represented the Ethics Commission before Justice Hornby stated, “The compelling interest for the public is to know whose spending money to influence their vote. Voters may want to know whether they are being lobbied by people from within or outside Maine.” Gardiner said the lawsuit is the first challenge of the state’s requirement for ballot question committees to register and report contributions.

The state law requires anyone raising or spending more than $5,000 on a ballot question in Maine to disclose anyone who contributed more than $100 for that purpose. All other organizations are complying with the law.

“The statute doesn’t restrict in any way what they can raise or what they can spend. It doesn’t restrict political speech in any way. It’s simply about reporting after the fact how much you spent or raised for the purpose of influencing the vote in Maine,” Gardiner says.

Violations can lead to fines, and, in the most extreme cases, a small amount of jail time.

Concluded Karger, “NOM was well aware of Maine’s longstanding reporting requirements and election law before it went charging up there to put this referendum on the ballot. From day one they tried to hide the source of their funds, and then sue the state when they got caught. They think that they are above the law, and today we saw that is not true.”

Share

News Alert: Uncovering secrets in Maine

so_florida_blade

Uncovering secrets in Maine
Anti-gay group rolls out scare tactics as referendum nears

By Danielle Truszkovsky

ON OCT. 1, the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics & Election Practices met to determine if a complaint filed by Fred Karger of Californians Against Hate against the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) would be investigated. In his complaint, Karger claimed that NOM violated campaign reporting requirements and that the group was actively participating in money laundering. Despite the evidence he submitted, which included NOM emails pertaining to fundraising specifically for Maine while alluding to donor anonymity, the commission’s staff recommended that no investigation be conducted due to lack of supporting evidence.

NOM had failed to disclose even its required IRS 990 filings to the public so it is not surprising that the evidence Karger possessed was limited. In my last Blade column published Sept. 18 entitled, “Follow the money: Why the federal gov’t must investigate NOM’s financial practices,” I detailed how the group has habitually hidden and revised its records. Uncovering NOM’s secrets has been the focus of my work for many months and as the title of my last column implies, I do believe an investigation into the group is warranted.

So I flew to Maine specifically to attend this hearing but due to circumstances beyond my control, I missed the first portion of the proceedings. I arrived just in time to hear the testimony of NOM Executive Director, Brian Brown, and a member of his legal team, Barry Bostrom.

Both Bostrom and Brown lavished praise on the staff and the Commission for their professionalism. They insinuated that the entire proceeding was a waste of everyone’s time and it was obvious that Brown had thought he had already won. At that point, most of us in the audience believed NOM had won as well — it is rare that a Commission overrules a staff recommendation.

Then Brown made an egregious error, stating: “Mr. Karger refers to the fact that we refused to disclose our financial records … this is simply not the case. We have given our 990s to journalists. They are now publicly available — they’re available on our web site and we did that because we got so many calls and people showing up at the office asking for them that it became quite difficult to work.”

Apparently, Brown had no idea I had entered the room. If he had, perhaps he would have reconsidered that statement because I am one of only two journalists who showed up at NOM’s office requesting 990s — I know this because Brown told me so in person when I interviewed him on Sept. 1. (The other was the Blade’s Lou Chibbaro Jr.)

IRS regulations require charities to release the documents within 24 hours of an in-person request. Brown did not release the documents to me — ever. And his reference to the documents “now [being] publicly available” was laughable because popular blogger ChinoBlanco revealed that NOM had secretly released the 990s on the web within days of the Maine hearing, presumably to feign compliance in front of the Commission.

Brown went on to attack Karger’s efforts and made false claims against the gay civil rights movement in general. Although it was never my intention to speak at this hearing, by the time Brown was finished, I simply couldn’t remain silent and allow his false statements to go uncontested.

ALTHOUGH THE COMMISSION does not allow public questioning of witnesses, they did grant me a few moments to speak. Here’s what I said:

“My name is Danielle Truszkovsky … I’m a political columnist … one of the journalists who have visited the NOM offices to request the 990s. It’s been an ongoing process attempting to obtain the records. I know that the group Californians Against Hate sent an initial request in March and (NOM) had 30 days to release the records, which they did not do and as far as I know, they have still not sent the records to Californians Against Hate.

“I also personally visited their ‘national headquarters’ in Princeton three times to make an in-person request and no one was ever available at that office — it’s basically a barren, empty space. I did speak with Brian [Brown] at his Washington, D.C., office and they did not have the returns available at that point.”
I went on to explain that NOM has also amended its 2007 return numerous times even though it is extremely rare for charitable organizations to do so. I quoted an e-mail … from NOM to its supporters in which the group “takes credit” for the signature gathering and fundraising efforts in Maine. This is a direct violation of the campaign laws in Maine that require groups that fund these efforts to register as PACs (Political Action Committees) or BQCs (Ballot Questioning Committees). My testimony ended with, “Now, I ask, how is it possible that this group [NOM] is the largest contributor to Stand for Marriage Maine at $160,000 but they are the only one who is not registered as a PAC or BQC?”

BROWN AND BOSTROM were then given the opportunity to speak again and when the pair finished, the Commission had some very interesting questions about NOM’s activities and attempts to conceal its records from the public. Brown admitted that NOM released its 990s on the web only within the past week. It was also revealed that after NOM donated its initial $160,000, the group has since poured hundreds of thousands more into Maine. As they scrambled to defend their activity in Maine, their story seemed to simply fall apart.

Upon completion of the discussion, the Commission voted 3-2 to conduct an investigation into the National Organization for Marriage.

Prior to the hearing, Brian Brown submitted a sworn affidavit, which states, “NOM does not accept donations designated for the Maine referendum” and “NOM has not made expenditures exceeding $5,000 for the purpose of initiating or promoting the people’s veto referendum in Maine, other than by contribution to Stand for Marriage Maine PAC.” If it is determined that NOM did violate any of the points listed in the affidavit, Brown could face perjury charges.

It will be interesting to see what developments occur next. It is safe to assume that NOM will do everything in its financial power to prevent its records from being examined. In California, NOM lodged a lawsuit against the secretary of state, the attorney general and the five commissioners of the California Fair Political Practices Commission for allowing an investigation into the group. NOM has also initiated litigation in California that attempts to remove all disclosure of contributors to political initiatives and campaigns. Rather than comply with state and federal regulations, it seems NOM and its backers prefer to use their massive war chest to conceal records and intimidate the officials who seek to protect the citizens they represent. Will NOM resort to the same desperate scare-tactics in Maine?

On Oct. 1, the Maine Commission on Ethics & Governmental Practices made a courageous decision to stand up for fairness. This, however, is just one small victory. On Nov. 3, the citizens of Maine will decide if their gay and straight neighbors deserve the same civil rights. For more information on protecting equality in Maine, visit the No on 1 campaign www.mainefreedomtomarry.com.

Share

State commission to investigate gay marriage repeal backer

State commission to investigate gay marriage repeal backer

Friday, October 2, 2009 2:05 PM EDT

AUGUSTA — The Commission on Governmental Ethics and Elections Practices voted 3-2 Thursday to launch an investigation of the Stand for Marriage Maine Political Action Committee’s primary funder, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). Both are working for a Nov. 3 people’s veto of a same-sex marriage law the Legislature passed and Gov. John Baldacci signed this spring.
A referendum to repeal that law — initiated by a petition drive — will appear as Question 1 on the Nov. 3 state ballot.

The commission’s decision reversed staff recommendations and followed nearly 40 minutes of conflicting assertions by Fred Karger, executive director of Californians Against Hate; Barry Bostrom and Brian Brown, of the National Organization for Marriage; and Danielle Truszkovsky, a freelance journalist from Florida.

Karger asserted that NOM was attempting to circumvent Maine election law by obscuring the names of its donors. He submitted dozens of documents dating to Aug. 13 and brought additional material to Thursday’s commission meeting.
Brown, NOM’s executive director, and his attorney, Bostrom, called Karger’s requests nothing more than attempts to identify those opposed to same-sex marriage as targets for future hate crimes. Each reiterated NOM’s compliance with Maine election law, explaining NOM does not solicit donations for work in specific states and instead conducts more generalized fundraising drives to support causes through its general treasury.

Of its effort to protect donor identities, Truszkovsky indicated NOM failed to disclose basic nonprofit financial statements, an Internal Revenue Service 990, and had filed amendments to the 990 three times. She told commissioners less than 1 percent of nonprofit organizations amend the disclosure one time, indicating three amendments in one reporting period was highly unusual.
Brown and Bostrom said the forms are now available on NOM’s Web site, http://www.nationformarriage.org/, in part because repeated requests for the public documents had interfered with staff work.

It was Karger’s documents, however, that piqued the interest of Commissioner Walter McKee, who seized on newsletters and other material specifically citing NOM’s interest in preserving traditional unions in Maine.

McKee seemed particularly incensed by one newsletter, where more than half the content was dedicated to funding efforts in Maine.

Bostrom responded that NOM’s e-mail newsletters solicited funds to “cover the costs of sending out e-mail newsletters.” Because NOM did not receive more than $5,000 from the newsletters, Bostrom said Maine law does not require NOM to register in the state as a political action committee. He also refuted arguments that NOM would be required to register as a ballot question initiative committee under Maine law.

This is not Karger’s first attempt to challenge supporters of same-sex marriage repeal initiatives. He asked the California Fair Political Practices Commission to investigate the connection between NOM and the Church of Latter Day Saints and its purported donations to Proposition 8, the 2007 measure that repealed same-sex marriage in California.

Brown told commissioners the Californian commission had not issued a finding of wrongdoing against NOM, which raised $1.8 million in less than two years in support of a California PAC supporting Proposition 8. Brown further asserted Karger’s efforts were merely to expose the names of those who consider marriage a union between one man and one woman.

Maine’s referendum has earned national interest, a point reiterated by those speaking before the commission Thursday. Karger traveled from California; Bostrom traveled from Indiana; Brown from New Jersey; and, Truszkovsky from Florida.

No one from Maine spoke in favor of or in opposition to the request to investigate National Organization for Marriage.

The proximity of the vote did not weigh on commissioners, who urged staff to review allegations given what one commissioner called the “slippery slope” of groups attempting to circumvent Maine election law.

Of the $343,689 in donations reported by Stand for Marriage Maine PAC as of June 2009, Karger wrote that religious organizations and James Dobson’s Focus on the Family fund donated all but $400 of the total raised.

He alleges the amount of donations to NOM, and the organization’s mission, makes NOM subject to Maine’s election laws.

McKee, of Hallowell, was initially inclined to follow staff recommendations, yet was persuaded by Karger’s arguments.

“There is a large amount of money in this campaign that concerns me, and I have to say authorizing investigations in circumstances like this is appropriate,” McKee said.

“I am troubled by the slippery slope when entities can circumvent the intent of what our laws seek to cover,” Commissioner Andre Duchette of Brunswick said. “I do think an investigation is warranted.”

Outgoing commission chairman Michael Friedman of Bangor disagreed, saying the pattern of national money flowing to Maine elections was the norm, not the exception. He urged commissioners to review statutes.

Commissioner Edward Youngblood of Bangor also voiced opposition. “There is no reason to get involved in a time-consuming investigation,” he said.

Commissioner Francis Marsano of Belfast said the commission needs to focus on the intent of the law.

“Time is not of the essence,” Marsano said, adding commission staff could not be expected to complete the investigation by the Nov. 3 election.

“This investigation should be done in a way that will produce the kinds of results Commissioner McKee was proposing,” he said.

McKee and Duchette, both Democrats, and Marsano, a Republican, voted to order the investigation. Republican Youngblood, and Friedman, who is not enrolled in a political party, opposed.

Marc Mutty, chairman of Stand for Marriage Maine, released a statement blasting the decision. “Stand for Marriage Maine is in complete compliance with Maine campaign disclosure laws,” he wrote. “The decision today by the Maine Ethics Commission to open an inquiry based on frivolous allegations concerning the fundraising procedures of one of our allies, the National Organization for Marriage, is an unfortunate abuse of power. It is yet another example of the harassment that follows supporters of traditional marriage. The split 3-2 vote overruled the independent professional recommendation of the commission staff that an investigation was not warranted. Instead, a bare majority of commissioners agreed with a California-based hate group that exists for the sole purpose of harassing marriage supporters …”

If California’s investigation is any indication, Maine’s probe will carry on well past Election Day. Reached for comment Thursday, Roman Porter, executive director of CFPP, said the California investigation spurred by Karger’s complaint is in its 11th month. Porter was unwilling to provide a timeline of when the investigation might end.Jonathan Wayne, executive director of Maine’s ethics commission, sought clarification of the staff role in the investigation and was authorized to subpoena Brown, through attorney Bostrom, as needed.The commission meets next on Nov. 19.

news@timesrecord.com

Share

Californians Against Hate Encouraged by Maine Ethics Commission Decision

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Source: Californians Against Hate
On Thursday October 1, 2009
PRESS CONTACT:
Fred Karger
Founder, Californians Against Hate
Tel: (619) 592-2008
Email: info@californiansagainsthate.com

Californians Against Hate Encouraged by Maine Ethics Commission Decision
Allegations of Election Irregularities in Upcoming Election Will Be Investigated

Augusta, Maine, October 1, 2009 — Californians Against Hate is encouraged to learn the State of Maine’s Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices will further investigate accusations made against the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and Stand for Marriage Maine PAC (SFMM).

Today’s hearing in Augusta, Maine resulted from allegations of election irregularities leveled by Californians Against Hate founder Fred Karger. Reacting to the Commission’s decision to pursue an investigation, Karger stated, “I’m extremely grateful for the courageous stand the commission took today.”

In a letter, dated September 21, 2009, NOM’s and SFMM’s legal representatives, Bopp, Coleson &Bostrom, indicate that NOM “makes large contributions to various state ballot measure committees from its general treasury,” but claim that, with a few exceptions, the organization “did not solicit or accept designated donations for Maine.” The letter also insists that Maine’s registration statute for non-political committees is “unconstitutional because it burdens an association’s right of free speech by requiring such to register and report as if they were political action committees, when they are not political action committees, and when they do not have the major purpose of influencing a Maine ballot question.”

The State of California, which investigates fewer than 5% of similar complaints, felt compelled to investigate allegations of election campaign irregularities on the part of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and, among others, the National Organization for Marriage. That investigation, instigated by a complaint filed by Californians Against Hate, is now in its tenth month.

The State of Iowa is currently contemplating its own investigation, as a result of similar allegations against the National Organization for Marriage lodged by the state’s Interfaith Alliance Action Fund and One Iowa, into NOM’s independent expenditure of $86,060 to influence Iowa District 90’s special election.

NOM is aggressively endeavoring to effect bans on same-sex marriage in some 29 states. The aforementioned letter filed by NOM’s legal representation reveals the organization’s projected 2009 operating budget to be $7 million.

###

Californians Against Hate is the new political watchdog for the LGBT community, and closely monitors all who oppose our civil rights. Individuals and organizations who give millions of dollars to deny LGBT full equality will be held accountable.

###

Copies of the letters from Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom can be found in PDF form online at the link.

Share

San Diego Yes on 8 “Celebration”

San Diego Yes on 8 “Celebration” BIG BUST
Only 200 to 300 People Show Up Sunday

SAN DIEGO, CA – Considering that every major Evangelical and Christian leader in San Diego spoke at and helped organize Sunday’s Yes on 8 campaign rally, we raise the question, where were all the people? Where were all their parishioners and supporters? On a Sunday, no less. Only 200 to 300 people showed up according to the San Diego Union-Tribune and the Los Angeles Times. This is the same leadership that expected 80,000 people at Qualcomm Stadium for “The Call” the Saturday before last November’s election. Maybe 8,000 showed up. They even had James Dobson speaking to a nearly empty football stadium.
Jim Garlow (pictured above) of Skyline Church and Miles McPhearson of the Rock Church (Miss California’s Church) + 15 other religious and political leaders could only muster a couple hundred people to come to the San Diego County building right after Sunday services – pathetic.

Jim Garlow had 6 (count ‘em, 6) bodyguards with him all day! There were lots of San Diego police at the Rally, but Pastor Garlow brought his own militia.

There were no Mormon speakers on the program, in spite of all they did to pass Proposition 8. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) have a huge presence and a big Temple in San Diego . Maybe this is why;

The Wall Street Journal quoted Master of Ceremonies, Pastor Jim Garlow, as saying, “I would not, in all candor, have been meeting them (Mormons) or talking with them had it not been for” the marriage campaign. Rev. Garlow said he had developed a “friendship” with the Mormons he met, although he feels the theological differences remain “unbridgeable.”


Nice way to treat the Mormons who raised $30 million to pass Prop 8!
Brian Brown, Executive Director of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), brought his entire family to San Diego from their home in New Jersey . That’s his wife and 6 small children. Maybe they got free rooms at the Boycotted Manchester Grand Hyatt downtown. Owner Doug Manchester gave a very early $125,000 to qualify Prop 8 for last November’s ballot.

Brown who works for Maggie Gallagher at NOM in Princeton , NJ was the featured speaker. Not quite the star quality of Charlize Thereon and Eric McCormack who spoke at Saturday’s No on 8 – Meet in the Middle 4 Equality Rally in Fresno , but Brian did a good job of rallying the couple hundred faithful.
Between Pastor Garlow’s 6 Body Guards and Brian’s 6 kids, they had a built in crowd. Are Yes on 8 supporters feeling ashamed and not wanting to go out and “celebrate?” We’re thinking, probably yes.
We at Californians Against Hate applaud all of the fair-minded people who stayed at home Sunday and did not turn out to “celebrate” the rights of millions of Californians being yanked away from them last November 4th.
Miss California ’s Pastor, Miles McPhearson, with Garlow looking on.

It was interesting to see that the bulk of those who did make it were all quite elderly.

We thought this was the best part of the Rally, the time keeper!

Well, it was one for the record books:
“Most Disappointing Victory Rally of 2009.”
Share