Connect with us

Exclusive — Fred Karger: Now That NOM Lost In Court We’ll Finally Find Out Who’s Funding Them

Published

on

In this exclusive op-ed, top National Organization For Marriage watchdog Fred Karger explores and explains who’s funding NOM’s anti-gay campaign “to demonize the LGBT community and deny us our full equality.”

Maine vs. NOM

“It’s very frustrating to be dealing with such a litigious group as this. You have to wonder what they’re trying so desperately to protect,” Attorney General Janet Mills said.

This quote came last week, right after the Maine State Supreme Court ordered the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) to turn over the names of its donors to the 2009 campaign NOM ran and funded to take away gay marriage in Maine. Brian Brown, NOM’s president has spent millions of dollars and countless hours (including his two long depositions conducted by the Attorney General) to keep their donors secret.

LOOK: Maine Supreme Court Unanimously Rules NOM Must Hand Over Donor List

We now know from Brown’s depositions that three of his mega-contributors gave NOM $1 million, $400,000 and $300,000 to be used in the Maine election that year. Brown conveniently couldn’t remember the names of these three very generous donors when questioned by Maine Assistant Attorney General Thomas Knowlton a few months later.

Any guesses?

All evidence points to the fact that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon Church) created NOM in 2007 to qualify and pass California’s Proposition 8 the following year. The Mormon Church conspired with the Catholic Church in California, but the Mormons got busted. The LDS Church raised $30 million of the $40 million it took to pass Prop 8. Between 2008 and 2009 the Mormon Church was also investigated, prosecuted, fined and found guilty on 13 counts of election fraud by the California Fair Political Practices Commission for all it did to pass Prop 8 and didn’t report. By the time Maine rolled around a year later, it appears that the Mormon Church had retreated and tried to fly under the radar.

But did the LDS Church or one of its wealthy members write out the $1 million check to NOM expecting that it would never be discovered? What about the Catholic Church? It was the face of the campaign to repeal Maine’s gay marriage law that year, but Catholic dioceses from around the country gave openly to pass Maine’s Question 1. Its political arm, the Knights of Columbus gave $50,000.  So it’s unlikely that the Catholics wouldn’t launder additional money to NOM, and then go through nearly four years of legal battles to keep it secret.

Maybe the big checks came from California’s Howard Ahmanson who gave $1,395,000 to pass Prop 8 or Philadelphia billionaire John Templeton, Jr. who gave $1,100,000 to pass Prop 8. These two men don’t seem to mind being publically identified opposing marriage equality, but lots of these mega-donors backed away from supporting NOM, because it was under investigation.

Jonathan Wayne, executive director of The Maine Commission on Governmental and Election Practices has indicated that its nearly four-year investigation of NOM should be wrapped up by September of this year. That’s just about four years from the day I went to testify before the Commission, filed my sworn complaint and asked them to investigate NOM for alleged campaign money laundering. It was an exciting day when the Commission voted to investigate NOM. After the vote and before his press conference Brian Brown excused himself from the proceedings and went to make one phone call. I would sure love to know exactly whom he called.

We were ridiculed when Danielle Avel and I produced 83 emails from NOM head Brian Brown, many of which appealed for money to help pass Maine’s Question 1. Brown’s emails often said, “Give your money directly to NOM and your names will be kept secret.” Then Brown denied that, in his sworn affidavit which he had “notarized” in Virginia before flying up to testify in front of the Ethics Committee.

Wonder if there is any law against filing a false and misleading affidavit when testifying before the Maine Commission on Governmental and Election Practices?

Huge Thanks Go Out to the State of Maine

I want to thank the courageous efforts of both the Maine Attorney General’s office and the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices. Both agencies have done the most incredible job of fighting back against NOM and its army of high priced attorneys for the past four years. Last week’s State Supreme Court ruling was a victory for everyone who believes in truth and transparency in elections.

Brian Brown and his National Organization for Marriage have worked overtime to demonize the LGBT community and deny us our full equality for half a decade. They have steadfastly refused to reveal where all their millions and millions of dollars to do so come from. Thanks to the courage and tenacity of Maine officials we will finally find out.

 

Fred Karger Bio 2013.docx - Google DriveFred  Karger, the first openly gay presidential candidate from a major political party in American history, is an American political consultant, gay rights activist, watchdog, political pundit, writer, public speaker, author, former actor and was the 2012 candidate for the Republican nomination for President.  Although he has never held elected office, Karger has worked on ten presidential campaigns and served as a senior consultant during the campaigns of Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush and Gerald Ford.  

 

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.

OPINION

‘Hardball? You Bet’: Dems ‘Need to Be Prepared’ After McCarthy Exit Urges Top Political Scholar

Published

on

The American voters sent 222 Republicans and 213 Democrats to the House of Representatives in the 2022 elections, the exact same margin, but flipped, as the 2020 election. But today, with the announcement that ousted, former GOP House Speaker Kevin McCarthy is not only not running for re-election but is quitting Congress at the end off the year, Republicans have a big majority crisis — because of their now tiny majority.

It’s no longer 222 to 213.

After McCarthy’s exit, and with the recent expulsion of now-former Congressman George Santos (R-NY) Republican Speaker Mike Johnson will have a very slim majority.

“The party’s margin in the House fell to three seats from four with the expulsion of Representative George Santos of New York last week,” The New York Times explains. “That leaves almost no wiggle room for Mr. Johnson, who is already dealing with a revolt from the far right for working with Democrats to keep the government funded and faces another pair of shutdown deadlines in mid-January and early February.”

READ MORE: Comer Threatens ‘Contempt’ Despite Hunter Biden’s Lawyer Quoting Chairman’s Media Appearances

“When the House returns in January,” The Washington Post adds, “Republicans can lose only two votes from their ranks to pass any legislation at a time when the chamber faces major decisions on government spending and foreign aid. That dynamic could force Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who assumed the post after a tumultuous three weeks following McCarthy’s ouster, to work with Democrats to avert a partial government shutdown as soon as mid-January.”

U.S. Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH) has announced he will retire and exit Congress early next year.

But possibly even before that, Speaker Johnson’s tiny majority could at some point become an opening for Democrats, according to a top political scientist and scholar, Dr. Norman Ornstein.

“Democrats need to be prepared to act swiftly and decisively if the numbers drop below 218– even if only for a day. Quick motion to vacate, [Hakeem] Jeffries as Speaker, immediate agenda,” writes Dr. Ornstein, a senior fellow emeritus at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), “where he has been studying politics, elections, and the US Congress for more than four decades.”

Ornstein offers more opportunities should Democrats be able to take the majority back soon.

READ MORE: Jim Comer Decimated by NBC Reporter in ‘Under Two Minutes’

“Reconciliation bill to secure robust spending, eliminate debt limit permanently, taxes on rich to pay for permanent child tax credit.”

He adds, the number of Republican members “would need to get down to 213. But any set of problems– a Covid outbreak, for example– could bring those numbers down, if only for a day or two. Have a plan ready! Hardball? You bet.”

David Rothkopf, the noted foreign policy, national security and political affairs analyst and commentator, responding to Ornstein’s remarks appeared to urge Republicans to join with Democrats to elect a Democratic Speaker, or even to switch parties:

“This. C’mon you GOPers from purple districts. Trump will have you purged and sent to Siberia. We just need 2 of you. You can be unloved by the GOP or heroes to the rest of America! Make your move now.”

Of course, special elections will be held to replace both Santos (scheduled for February 13, 2024) and McCarthy (likely summer, according to The Post), and at some point Johnson.

But with the extremely large number of members of Congress who have exited or will be, as Ornstein says, Democrats need to be ready.

Continue Reading

News

Comer Threatens ‘Contempt’ Despite Hunter Biden’s Lawyer Quoting Chairman’s Media Appearances

Published

on

Republican House Oversight Committee Chairman Jim Comer is now threatening Hunter Biden with “contempt” of Congress if he refuses to testify behind closed doors. The President’s son has repeatedly offered to testify in public.

Abbe Lowell, the attorney with “close ties inside the Trump White House” who is now representing Hunter Biden, Wednesday morning again reiterated his demand that any testimony before the House Oversight Committee be in a public hearing, and he used Chairman Comer’s own words to make his point.

But Comer, who is moving toward impeaching President Joe Biden despite having offered no actual proof of any impeachable offense, was quick to tell Politico: “He’s been subpoenaed. We expect him to show up. They don’t get to make the rules.”

“I would expect Congress to hold the president’s son in contempt,” Comer said, if Hunter Biden refuses to testify in a closed-door session.

READ MORE: Jim Comer Decimated by NBC Reporter in ‘Under Two Minutes’

“As indicated in my November 28, 2023, letter,” Lowell wrote to Chairman Comer earlier on Wednesday, in a letter published by The Washington Examiner, “Mr. Biden has offered to appear at a hearing on the December 13, 2023, date you have reserved, or another date this month, to answer any question pertinent and relevant to the subject matter stated in your November 8, 2023, letter.”

Lowell made clear his motivation for a public hearing before cameras.

“He is making this choice because the Committee has demonstrated time and again it uses closed-door sessions to manipulate, even distort, the facts and misinform the American public—a hearing would ensure transparency and truth in these proceedings.”

But Lowell cited Comer’s own words from a few of his numerous media appearances to demonstrate how the Chairman welcomed an open-door public hearing. The Daily Beast’s Justin Baragona noted that Lowell, in his letter, “again cites Comer practically daring Hunter to publicly testify.”

Lowell cited Comer’s remarks on October 31 on “The Benny Show.”

READ MORE: ‘Does America Need More God?’: Mike Johnson Laments LGBTQ High School Kids

“We’re in the downhill phase of this investigation now because we have so many documents, and we can bring these people in for depositions or committee hearings, whichever they choose , . . . .”

Also, his September 13 statement on Newsmax.

“Hunter Biden is more than welcome to come in front of the committee . . . he’s invited today. We will drop everything.”

He also cited Comer’s “November 8, 2023, statement in your cover letter addressed to me: ‘Given your client’s willingness to address this investigation publicly up to this point, we would expect him to be willing to testify before Congress.”

(Emphasis included in Lowell’s letter.)

“We look forward to working out the schedule,” Lowell concluded.

READ MORE: ‘Authoritarianism’: Florida Says Its Public Schools Exist to ‘Convey Government’s Message’

 

 

 

Continue Reading

News

Jim Comer Decimated by NBC Reporter in ‘Under Two Minutes’

Published

on

Republican House Oversight Committee Chair Jim Comer melted down in an interview with NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent Ryan Nobles on Tuesday as he once again appeared unable to prove President Joe Biden engaged in money laundering or other illicit acts.

“So sir, there were the two checks,” Nobles told Comer (video below), “the $40,000 check and the $200,000 check that came from the president’s son and into the President’s bank account. There was also subsequent bank records, which were provided through the [Oversight] Committee, that demonstrate that there were also subsequent pieces of information that went from the President to the president’s son.”

Comer repeatedly denied Nobles account.

“That is not true,” Comer claimed.

READ MORE: Comer Says Biden’s Bank Records ‘Don’t Lie’ but His Claims Are Quickly Debunked

“So that you’re saying that that information has been made up then?” Nobles tried to confirm. “Where did that information come from? That came from the Committee.”

“I don’t know,” Comer claimed. “We haven’t seen that information.”

“That is Committee information that is collected from the bank records that your committee has obtained,” Nobles, in something of a “Perry Mason” moment, informed Chairman Comer.

“Just show the check,” Comer insisted.

“Do you have a canceled check for every wire transfer that’s ever come into your account?” Nobles asked.

“Yes,” Comer declared.

“And that’s what has been shown, there is bank records that demonstrate an exact same amount of money,” Nobles explained, as Comer talked over him.

READ MORE: ‘Authoritarianism’: Florida Says Its Public Schools Exist to ‘Convey Government’s Message’

“Are you saying, okay, sir, are you saying those bank records do not exist?” Nobles pressed, “That show the money leaving the President’s account and into his son’s?”

“They were money laundering. You see wires going all over the –” Comer charged.

“Sir, answer this specific question: Is there a bank record that demonstrates the exact amount of money that came from the President’s account into his son’s account that matches the checks that then went back to him? Does that exist? Yes or no?”

“No, no!” Comer blared. “There’s money coming from a law firm.”

“That doesn’t exist? That doesn’t exist, sir?” Nobles asked.

“It does not exist. It’s coming from a law firm. Who put who put the money in the law firm? How do you know the money came from Joe Biden? It could have come from one of Hunter shell companies. You have no idea,” Comer replied.

“Okay. So you are saying that that money that that money exists?” Nobles, making his case, concluded. “That transfer does exist there in the bank records that you and your committee –”

“No!” Comer then declared. “You don’t know what that transfer is.”

READ MORE: No Regrets: Tuberville to Continue Blocking 4-Star Generals While Releasing Hold on Other Officers

Tim Mulvey, the former communications director for the U.S. House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack responded to the clip, writing: “In my experience, when a chairman goes on tv and can’t answer even the most basic questions about ‘blockbuster’ evidence without utterly unraveling, it might not be the strongest case.”

“In under two minutes,” wrote Adam Cohen of Lawyers for Good Government, “James Comer goes from checks that confirm harmless transactions between Joe and Hunter Biden ‘do not exist’ To ‘they exist, but we claim they might be suspicious.'”

White House spokesman Ian Sams posted the clip on social media late Tuesday night, with a snarky comment.

Watch the video below or at this link.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.