Connect with us

Wall Street Journal Calls NOM Deceptive Again – Here’s Why They’re Right



The Wall Street Journal two weeks ago characterized an anti-same-sex marriage equality campaign by the National Organization For Marriage (NOM), as “deceptive,” and, even after a response from none other than NOM Chair Maggie Gallagher, reiterated the “deceptive’ label again today. Here’s why they’re right.

In his July 26 Wall Street Journal column, James Taranto wrote, “If the National Organization for Marriage were a commercial enterprise, its ‘Let the People Vote’ campaign would be a case of deceptive advertising.”

“‘Let the People Vote’ is a futile venture; Roe v. Wade is likelier to be overturned than New York’s Marriage Equality Act is to be repealed or nullified,” Taranto concluded, adding, “the language on the [‘Let the People Vote’] site implies that the Legislature acted illegitimately when it ‘imposed same-sex marriage on New York with no vote of the people.’ Such a vote is not part of the ordinary procedure for enacting legislation in New York, and it is misleading to pretend otherwise.”

WATCH: Maggie Gallagher: “It’s Gonna Be A Bloody Mess In New York” (Video)

Unsurprisingly, NOM’s Maggie Gallagher was none-too-pleased, and penned a response, which the WSJ generously published today (about half-way down the page.) Here’s a portion of Chairman Gallagher’s screed:

“To compare this Let the People Vote effort to the likelihood of repealing Roe v. Wade is seriously misplaced. 80% of New York voters want the right to vote on marriage, just as voters in 31 other states have been able to do. Some cultural elites said the abortion debate was over when the Roe decision came down, and it was time to move on. But people of faith did not rest, and now a majority in this country are pro-life. With marriage, 62% of Americans already support the belief that marriage is between one man and one woman, as do a majority of New Yorkers, and an overwhelming majority of New Yorkers want to be able to vote on the issue. Those numbers do not suggest it is time for surrender. Its time to come together and fight for the survival of marriage no matter the procedural obstacles we face. That’s what we at NOM and our allies intend to do.”

Even if you read Gallagher’s entire response, you’ll see that it contains no effort to repudiate the accusation that “Let The People Vote” — at its core — is deceptive. And Gallagher, a rather intelligent individual, must know it is.

Gallagher isn’t intending to “let the people vote” on marriage equality at all, despite the campaign. I could hold a “let me lose 30 pounds without trying” campaign too, but it would be equally futile and self-deluding.

A few more important points.

READ: NY Same-Sex Marriage: Why NOM’s 10,000 Protesters Lie Is So Embarrassing

Taranto today responds to Gallagher’s response:

“Meanwhile, ‘NOM Staff’ blogs on the organization’s website: ‘There will be an election in 2012, in which we will find out if Republican elites are right they can pass a gay marriage bill in NY without consequences.’

“Imposing ‘consequences’ on ‘Republican elites’ is a perfectly legitimate goal,” Taranto writes. “But to the extent that that is the objective of the ‘Let the People Vote’ effort, it reinforces our view that the effort is deceptive.”


(Side note: as usual, NOM posts only the parts they liked from the WSJ on their site today, of course.)

But wait, there’s more!

Gallagher writes above, “80% of New York voters want the right to vote on marriage…” But no one The New Civil Rights Movement reached out to, nor any Google search, could provide us with a poll or other document that finds that result — or anything like it.

What a Gooogle search did net — in addition to today’s claim of,  “80% of New York voters want the right to vote on marriage…” is this:

“80% of Rhode Islanders want the chance to vote on marriage…” from a NOM press release dated January 11, 2011, and this quote, which appeared in a One News Now article titled, “NY Republicans sell out on marriage vote.”

“The poll shows that 57 percent of New York voters believe marriage should be defined only as one man and one woman,” says Gallagher, “and that in addition, the vast majority — I think it was close to 60 percent — said that they think the people of New York should have the right to decide this issue, not the legislature.”

So, which is it?

Do an amazingly consistent 80% of New Yorkers and Rhode Islanders “want the right to vote on marriage?” Or is the number “close to 60 percent?,” Maggie? Or, is this number just made up? If there is a “poll,” is it a reputable, real, and accurate poll? Not like some others NOM has publicized.

Gallagher has not responded to a request for comment on this issue.

But wait, there’s more!

Gallagher’s NOM, the National Organization For Marriage, is fundraising on the “fact” that “New Yorkers Stand 10,000 Strong for Marriage!,” and, “By the time we reached the United Nations plaza, nearly 10,000 people were present,” referring to their anti-gay hate rally held in midtown Manhattan July 24, the day same-sex marriage became legal in New York state.

The NYPD puts the attendance at NOM’s anti-gay hate rally at 3000. That’s an official number obtained by The New Civil Rights Movement.

There’s a big difference between 3,000 and 10,000, and as we wrote a week ago, there’s a really big difference between 3,000 and 20,000. What’s 20,000? The number of confirmed protesters at NOM’s anti-gay hate rally in 2009.

Looks like the people are voting Maggie. Against you, NOM, and against anti-gay hate.


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.


Dominion Wins ‘Blockbuster Victories’ Against Fox News – Last Legal Issue Will Be Decided by a Jury: Report



Dominion Voting Systems won what are being called “blockbuster victories” Friday afternoon when a judge ruled the company suing Fox News for $1.6 billion in a major defamation lawsuit had met its burden of proof that Rupert Murdoch‘s far-right wing cable channel had repeatedly made false statements.

The final, and likely greatest legal issue Dominion will have to prove will be actual malice. That issue will be decided in a jury trial, Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric M. Davis ruled Friday, according to Law & Crime.

Unlike previous cases, Fox News will reportedly not be able to argue the on-air statements its personalities made were opinion.

CNN legal analyst and Brookings senior fellow Norm Eisen calls Friday’s decision a “huge win for Dominion on their summary judgment motion against Fox News.”

READ MORE: Capitol Police Issue Warning Over Possible Trump Protests ‘Across the Country’

“Dominion won partial summary judgement that what Fox said about them was false! Now they just have to prove actual malice and damages,” Eisen says. “Meanwhile Fox’s motion was totally denied.”

Former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance, an MSNBC contributor adds: “Dominion’s evidence Fox made false statements with reckless disregard  is as strong as any I’ve seen.”

The judge was very clear in his ruling.

“While the Court must view the record in the light most favorable to Fox, the record does not show a genuine issue of material fact as to falsity,” Judge Davis wrote. “Through its extensive proof, Dominion has met its burden of showing there is no genuine issue of material fact as to falsity. Fox therefore had the burden to show an issue of material fact existed in turn. Fox failed to meet its burden.”

READ MORE: ‘Propaganda Network’: Media Reporter Says Dominion Filing Exposes Fox News as ‘Void of the Most Basic Journalistic Ethics’

Attorney and MSNBC host and legal analyst Katie Phang points to this key passage in Judge Davis’ ruling.

Court watchers and news junkies are familiar at this point with the massive legal filings Dominion has made in which it exposed how Fox News knowingly made false statements regarding the 2020 presidential election. Those filings, each hundreds of pages, also detail internal Fox News communications and bombshell conversations between the company’s top personalities, executives, and even Chairman Rupert Murdoch.


Image of Rupert Murdoch via Shutterstock

Continue Reading


Capitol Police Issue Warning Over Possible Trump Protests ‘Across the Country’



The U.S. Capitol Police and the Senate Sergeant at Arms on Friday jointly issued a statement warning they “anticipate” Trump protests across the country. The statement is not time-specific, and it states it has no information on “credible threats,” but some Democratic offices are allowing staffers to work from home Friday and Tuesday.

“The Sergeant at Arms and United States Capitol Police (USCP) anticipate demonstration activity across the country related to the indictment of former President Trump. While law enforcement is not tracking any specific, credible threats against the Capitol or state offices, there is potential for demonstration activity. USCP is working with law enforcement partners, so you may observe a greater law enforcement presence on Capitol Hill,” the statement reads.

“The SAA and USCP are monitoring the potential nationwide impacts to Senate state offices,” it adds.

The House Sergeant at Arms was conspicuously absent from the statement. Speaker Kevin McCarthy has control over that office.

READ MORE: Trump Trial Could Go Well Into the 2024 Election – Or Possibly Even Past It: Former Prosecutor

Additionally, Axios is reporting, “several House Democrats are allowing staffers to work from home as a safety precaution,” noting that “the memory of Trump supporters ransacking the Capitol on Jan. 6 is still fresh on the mind.”

U.S. Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI) is allowing staff to work from home for safety reasons. She told Axios, “I don’t ever want to see a Jan. 6 again.”

“I’ve been in the Trump hate tunnel, Donald Trump has gone after me, and quite frankly I don’t have security. I don’t have entourages.”

She’s not the only Democrat to raise concerns.

“Much of the language from the former President and his devotees is similar to what inspired Jan. 6th,” U.S. Rep. Dean Phillips said. “I’m concerned about safety for my colleagues and my staff.”

READ MORE: ‘Lighting the Match’: Marjorie Taylor Greene Blasted for Off the Rails Rant Defending Trump

Meanwhile, House Republicans are issuing full-throated support for Trump and calling for protests.

U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), who was called out by name in a six-page letter Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg sent to Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan Friday morning, announced she will be in New York on Tuesday to support Trump when he is arraigned. She has posted several tweets since Trump was indicted.

Speaker Kevin McCarthy issued a statement Thursday seemingly designed to gin up rage and action in the MAGA base.

“Alvin Bragg has irreparably damaged our country in an attempt to interfere in our Presidential election. As he routinely frees violent criminals to terrorize the public, he weaponized our sacred system of justice against President Donald Trump. The American people will not tolerate this injustice, and the House of Representatives will hold Alvin Bragg and his unprecedented abuse of power to account.”


Image by Elvert Barnes via Flickr and a CC license

Continue Reading


Trump Trial Could Go Well Into the 2024 Election – Or Possibly Even Past It: Former Prosecutor



Donald Trump, and all of America, could spend the next 18 months – or longer – engrossed in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s trial of the ex-president, and that could bring the trial close to Election Day.

That’s according to a former prosecutor in the Brooklyn District Attorney’s office, Charles Coleman, who is now a civil rights attorney and MSNBC legal analyst.

Asked by MSNBC’s Chris Jansing, “How long typically might a case like this take?” Coleman offered a two-tiered answer.

“A case like this is usually going to take a year or a year and a half,” Coleman said.

That could be through September of 2024.

READ MORE: ‘Lighting the Match’: Marjorie Taylor Greene Blasted for Off the Rails Rant Defending Trump

“Wow,” a surprised Jansing replied. “So it’s going right up into the campaign.”

“Absolutely,” agreed Coleman. “But it’s important to understand I said a case ‘like this.’ This particular case, I expect may take longer because I am anticipating a number of different legal maneuvers by Donald Trump’s defense team.”

That theoretically means into October of 2024, or longer.

“I do see motions to dismiss at a number of different terms, more likely than not to the point that the judge probably will ultimately end up admonishing them and telling them stop filing motions to dismiss. I think that that’s going to happen,” Coleman explained.

“I’ve said before, and I’ll say again, I do believe that we are going to see an attempt to try to change the venue, in this case outside of somewhere in the five boroughs. All of that is going to extend the time deeper and deeper into election season.”

READ MORE: Manhattan DA Unleashes on Jim Jordan With Stern Warning: You May Not ‘Interfere’ With Trump Prosecution

Reuters agrees, reporting Friday morning, “any potential trial is still at minimum more than a year away, legal experts said, raising the possibility that the former U.S. president could face a jury in a Manhattan courtroom during or even after the 2024 presidential campaign, as he seeks a return to the White House.”

And because “Trump’s case is far from typical,” Reuters notes, his trial could extend “past Election Day in November 2024.”





Continue Reading


Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.