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Vote’ is a futile venture; Roe v. Wade is likelier to be overturned than New York’s Marriage Equality Act is to be repealed or nullified,” Taranto concluded, adding, “the language on the [‘Let the People Vote’] site implies that the Legislature acted illegitimately when it ‘imposed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:Â NY Same-Sex Marriage: Why NOM’s 10,000 Protesters Lie Is So Embarrassing
Taranto today responds to Gallagher’s response:
“Meanwhile, ‘NOM Staff’Â 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.”
Touché!
(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.
Â
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.
 |
Republican Governor Kristi Noem of South Dakota, a top potential Trump vice presidential running mate pick, revealed in a forthcoming book she “hated” her 14-month old puppy and shot it to death. Massive online outrage ensued, including accusations of “animal cruelty” and “cold-blooded murder,” but the pro-life former member of Congress is defending her actions and bragging she had the media “gasping.”
“Cricket was a wirehair pointer, about 14 months old,” Noem writes in her soon-to-be released book, according to The Guardian which reports “the dog, a female, had an ‘aggressive personality’ and needed to be trained to be used for hunting pheasant.”
“By taking Cricket on a pheasant hunt with older dogs, Noem says, she hoped to calm the young dog down and begin to teach her how to behave. Unfortunately, Cricket ruined the hunt, going ‘out of her mind with excitement, chasing all those birds and having the time of her life’.”
“Then, on the way home after the hunt, as Noem stopped to talk to a local family, Cricket escaped Noem’s truck and attacked the family’s chickens, ‘grabb[ing] one chicken at a time, crunching it to death with one bite, then dropping it to attack another’.”
READ MORE: President Hands Howard Stern Live Interview After NY Times Melts Down Over Biden Brush-Off
“Cricket the untrainable dog, Noem writes, behaved like ‘a trained assassin’.”
Except Cricket wasn’t trained. Online several people with experience training dogs have said Noem did everything wrong.
“I hated that dog,” Noem wrote, calling the young girl pup “untrainable,” “dangerous to anyone she came in contact with,” and “less than worthless … as a hunting dog.”
“At that moment,” Noem wrote, “I realized I had to put her down.”
“It was not a pleasant job,” she added, “but it had to be done. And after it was over, I realized another unpleasant job needed to be done.”
The Guardian reports Noem went on that day to slaughter a goat that “smelled ‘disgusting, musky, rancid’ and ‘loved to chase’ Noem’s children, knocking them down and ruining their clothes.”
She dragged both animals separately into a gravel pit and shot them one at a time. The puppy died after one shell, but the goat took two.
On social media Noem expressed no regret, no sadness, no empathy for the animals others say did not need to die, and certainly did not need to die so cruelly.
READ MORE: ‘Assassination of Political Rivals as an Official Act’: AOC Warns Take Trump ‘Seriously’
But she did use the opportunity to promote her book.
We love animals, but tough decisions like this happen all the time on a farm. Sadly, we just had to put down 3 horses a few weeks ago that had been in our family for 25 years.
If you want more real, honest, and politically INcorrect stories that’ll have the media gasping,… pic.twitter.com/bKhpUkchHV
— Kristi Noem (@KristiNoem) April 26, 2024
Attorney and legal analyst Jeffrey Evan Gold says Governor Noem’s actions might have violated state law.
“You slaughtered a 14-month-old puppy because it wasn’t good at the ‘job’ you chose for it?” he asked. “SD § 40-1-2.3. ‘No person owning or responsible for the care of an animal may neglect, abandon, or mistreat the animal.'”
The Democratic National Committee released a statement saying, “Kristi Noem’s extreme record goes beyond bizarre rants about killing her pets – she also previously said a 10-year-old rape victim should be forced to carry out her pregnancy, does not support exceptions for rape or incest, and has threatened to throw pharmacists in jail for providing medication abortions.”
Former Trump White House Director of Strategic Communications Alyssa Farah Griffin, now a co-host on “The View” wrote, “There are countless organizations that re-home dogs from owners who are incapable of properly training and caring for them.”
The Lincoln Project’s Rick Wilson blasted the South Dakota governor.
“Kristi Noem is trash,” he began. “Decades with hunting- and bird-dogs, and the number I’ve killed because they were chicken-sharp or had too much prey drive is ZERO. Puppies need slow exposure to birds, and bird-scent.”
“She killed a puppy because she was lazy at training bird dogs, not because it was a bad dog,” he added. “Not every dog is for the field, but 99.9% of them are trainable or re-homeable. We have one now who was never going in the field, but I didn’t kill her. She’s sleeping on the couch. You down old dogs, hurt dogs, and sick dogs humanely, not by shooting them and tossing them in a gravel pit. Unsporting and deliberately cruel…but she wrote this to prove the cruelty is the point.”
Melissa Jo Peltier, a writer and producer of the “Dog Whisperer with Cesar Millan” series, also heaped strong criticism on Noem.
“After 10+ years working with Cesar Millan & other highly specialized trainers, I believe NO dog should be put down just because they can’t or won’t do what we decide WE want them to,” Peltier said in a lengthy statement. “Dogs MUST be who they are. Sadly, that’s often who WE teach them to be. And our species is a hot mess. I would have happily taken Kristi Noem’s puppy & rehomed it. What she did is animal cruelty & cold blooded murder in my book.”
READ MORE: ‘Blood on Your Hands’: Tennessee Republicans OK Arming Teachers After Deadly School Shooting
President Joe Biden gave an nearly-unannounced, last-minute, live exclusive interview Friday morning to Howard Stern, the SiriusXM radio host who for decades, from the mid-1990s to about 2015, was a top Trump friend, fan, and aficionado. But the impetus behind the President’s move appears to be a rare and unsigned statement from the The New York Times Company, defending the “paper of record” after months of anger from the public over what some say is its biased negative coverage of the Biden presidency and, especially, a Thursday report by Politico claiming Times Publisher A.G. Sulzberger is furious the President has refused to give the “Grey Lady” an in-person interview.
“The Times’ desire for a sit-down interview with Biden by the newspaper’s White House team is no secret around the West Wing or within the D.C. bureau,” Politico reported. “Getting the president on the record with the paper of record is a top priority for publisher A.G. Sulzberger. So much so that last May, when Vice President Kamala Harris arrived at the newspaper’s midtown headquarters for an off-the-record meeting with around 40 Times journalists, Sulzberger devoted several minutes to asking her why Biden was still refusing to grant the paper — or any major newspaper — an interview.”
“In Sulzberger’s view,” Politico explained, “only an interview with a paper like the Times can verify that the 81-year-old Biden is still fit to hold the presidency.”
But it was this statement that made Politico’s scoop go viral.
READ MORE: Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’
“’All these Biden people think that the problem is Peter Baker or whatever reporter they’re mad at that day,’ one Times journalist said. ‘It’s A.G. He’s the one who is pissed [that] Biden hasn’t done any interviews and quietly encourages all the tough reporting on his age.'”
Popular Information founder Judd Legum in March documented The New York Times’ (and other top papers’) obsession with Biden’s age after the Hur Report.
1. The media turned Robert Hur’s amateur assessment of Biden’s memory into a political crisis.
Collectively, the @washingtonpost, @nytimes, and @WSJ have run 66 articles quoting Hur: a “well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory”
But when the transcript of the Biden interview… pic.twitter.com/cExzjuKeYz
— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) March 14, 2024
Thursday evening the Times put out a “scorching” statement, as Politico later reported, not on the newspaper’s website but on the company’s corporate website, not addressing the Politico piece directly but calling it “troubling” that President Biden “has so actively and effectively avoided questions from independent journalists during his term.”
Media watchers and critics pushed back on the Times’ statement.
READ MORE: ‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act
“NYT issues an unprecedented statement slamming Biden for ‘actively and effectively avoid[ing] questions from independent journalists during his term’ and claiming it’s their ‘independence’ that Biden dislikes, when it’s actually that they’re dying to trip him up,” wrote media critic Dan Froomkin, editor of Press Watch.
Froomkin also pointed to a 2017 report from Poynter, a top journalism site published by The Poynter Institute, that pointed out the poor job the Times did of interviewing then-President Trump.
Incidentally, when the NYT got a chance to interview Trump, they went belly up. https://t.co/fW5kx5868d pic.twitter.com/LbrhfYMtqf
— Dan Froomkin (PressWatchers.org) (@froomkin) April 25, 2024
Others, including former Biden Deputy Secretary of State Brian McKeon, debunked the Times’ claim President Biden hasn’t given interviews to independent journalists by pointing to Biden’s interviews with CBS News’ “60 Minutes” and a 20-minute sit-down interview with veteran journalist John Harwood for ProPublica.
Former Chicago Sun-Times editor Mark Jacob, now a media critic who publishes Stop the Presses, offered a more colorful take of Biden’s decision to go on Howard Stern.
This is the equivalent of putting a bag of dog poop on the New York Times’ doorstep and setting it on fire. https://t.co/RhGbHH9pU2
— Mark Jacob (@MarkJacob16) April 26, 2024
The Times itself just last month reported on a “wide-ranging interview” President Biden gave to The New Yorker.
Watch the video and read the social media posts above or at this link.
READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks
Donald Trump’s Friday morning claim Manhattan’s Criminal Courts Building is “heavily guarded” so his supporters cannot attend his trial was torched by a top CNN anchor. The ex-president, facing 34 felony charges in New York, had been urging his followers to show up and protest on the courthouse steps, but few have.
“I’m at the heavily guarded Courthouse. Security is that of Fort Knox, all so that MAGA will not be able to attend this trial, presided over by a highly conflicted pawn of the Democrat Party. It is a sight to behold! Getting ready to do my Courthouse presser. Two minutes!” Trump wrote Friday morning on his Truth Social account.
CNN’s Kaitlan Collins supplied a different view.
“Again, the courthouse is open the public. The park outside, where a handful of his supporters have gathered on trials days, is easily accessible,” she wrote minutes after his post.
READ MORE: ‘Assassination of Political Rivals as an Official Act’: AOC Warns Take Trump ‘Seriously’
Trump has tried to rile up his followers to come out and make a strong showing.
On Monday Trump urged his supporters to “rally behind MAGA” and “go out and peacefully protest” at courthouses across the country, while complaining that “people who truly LOVE our Country, and want to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, are not allowed to ‘Peacefully Protest,’ and are rudely and systematically shut down and ushered off to far away ‘holding areas,’ essentially denying them their Constitutional Rights.”
On Wednesday Trump claimed, “The Courthouse area in Lower Manhattan is in a COMPLETE LOCKDOWN mode, not for reasons of safety, but because they don’t want any of the thousands of MAGA supporters to be present. If they did the same thing at Columbia, and other locations, there would be no problem with the protesters!”
After detailing several of his false claims about security measures prohibiting his followers from being able to show their support and protest, CNN published a fact-check on Wednesday:
“Trump’s claims are all false. The police have not turned away ‘thousands of people’ from the courthouse during his trial; only a handful of Trump supporters have shown up to demonstrate near the building,” CNN reported.
“And while there are various security measures in place in the area, including some street closures enforced by police officers and barricades, it’s not true that ‘for blocks you can’t get near this courthouse.’ In reality, the designated protest zone for the trial is at a park directly across the street from the courthouse – and, in addition, people are permitted to drive right up to the front of the courthouse and walk into the building, which remains open to the public. If people show up early enough in the morning, they can even get into the trial courtroom itself or the overflow room that shows near-live video of the proceedings.”
READ MORE: Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’
Noem Defends Shooting Her 14-Month Old Puppy to Death, Brags She Has Media ‘Gasping’
President Hands Howard Stern Live Interview After NY Times Melts Down Over Biden Brush-Off
CNN Smacks Down Trump Rant Courthouse So ‘Heavily Guarded’ MAGA Cannot Attend His Trial
‘Assassination of Political Rivals as an Official Act’: AOC Warns Take Trump ‘Seriously’
Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’
News2 days ago‘Assassination of Political Rivals as an Official Act’: AOC Warns Take Trump ‘Seriously’
News2 days ago‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act
News2 days agoJustices Slam Trump Lawyer: ‘Why Is It the President Would Not Be Required to Follow the Law?’
News2 days agoJustices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’
OPINION1 day agoPresident Hands Howard Stern Live Interview After NY Times Melts Down Over Biden Brush-Off
News1 day agoCNN Smacks Down Trump Rant Courthouse So ‘Heavily Guarded’ MAGA Cannot Attend His Trial
OPINION1 day agoNoem Defends Shooting Her 14-Month Old Puppy to Death, Brags She Has Media ‘Gasping’