Connect with us

TNCRM’s Scott Rose Asks California Commission To Prosecute NOM

Published

on

The National Organization for Marriage‘s “Yes on 8” — the group responsible for getting Prop 8 on the ballot and getting it passed — has admitted guilt in 18 counts of violating California state election finance laws.

NOM now is hoping that the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) will accept NOM’s offer to settle on NOM’s rampant law breaking for only $49,000.

This reporter sent the FPPC the message below, explaining why strict deterrent penalties must be imposed on the malevolently anti-gay NOM bigots who have admitted to breaking laws.

FPPC officials to whom this e-mail (below) was sent include Commission Chair Ann Ravel, Executive Director John Wallace, Chief of the Administration Division Tina Z. Bass, General Counsel Zackery P. Morazzini, Chief of the Technical Assistance Division Lynda Cassady, and Chief of the Enforcement Division Gary Winuk.

From:

Scott Rose
Minorities Anti-Defamation Professional

To the Entire California Fair Political Practices Commission:

This regards your case against the anti-gay-rights group “Yes on 8,” which is part of The National Organization for Marriage.

NOM is to American LGBTers what the KKK is to blacks and Jews.

NOM wants to settle your case against it, in order to evade full criminal justice accountability for its law-breaking ways.

Meanwhile, the organization is spending umpteen millions upon tens of millions around the country and the world, demonizing sexual minorities on the basis of known falsehoods (i.e. demonizing lies), hate-mongering and inspiring to violence against us.

In state after state, NOM has apparently violated election finance laws, and then tied up the courts bringing apparently frivolous challenges to the laws, not caring about the waste of tax payers’ resources in pursuing those apparently frivolous cases through appeals. If all of these NOM election law violations-related cases had been brought in a single court system, instead of the court systems of many different states, a court almost surely would already have barred NOM from filing any such cases in the future.

NOM must now be given an effective deterrent penalty for having broken at least 18 of California’s state campaign finance laws.

As stated above, NOM hate-mongers and incites to violence against sexual minorities.

NOM sponsors anti-gay hate rallies where its hand-selected speakers yell through megaphones that homosexuals are “worthy to death.”

To see a video of one such NOM anti-gay hate rally, go here.

NOM also incites people to believe that gays are not human. For example, NOM’s Wiliam Duncan led a symposium in an all-day anti-gay hate fest titled “Homosexuals or Homo Sapiens; Who Deserves Protected Class Status?” You can see documentation for NOM’s William Duncan having done that, here.

To spell this out for you: NOM says that homosexuals are not human and deserve to die.

We are sick and tired of these arrogant, tyrannical, hateful heterosupremacists believing that they are above the law.

Many top NOM officials also are top officials with other anti-gay hate groups. NOM founder Robert George, for example, is a board member of the Family Research Council, a Southern Poverty Law Center-certified anti-gay hate group. The SPLC classifies groups as hate groups when they continually promulgate demonizing lies against a minority. The SPCL 2012 Intelligence Report on NOM is titled “National Organization for Marriage Continues to Spread Lies Against Gays.” You can view that SLPC report here.

NOM founder Robert George also is senior fellow of The Witherspoon Institute, whose president Luis Tellez is a NOM board member.

The Witherspoon Institute funded a sociological “study” from the University of Texas at Austin’s Mark Regnerus, booby-trapped with malice aforethought to make gay parents look bad. First, Witherspoon/NOM gave Regnerus a $55,000 “planning grant” for a study on gay parents’ child outcomes. After seeing Regnerus’s “plan,” booby trapped to make gay parents look bad, Witherspoon/NOM arranged for Regnerus to have a known minimum total of $785,000 in study funding; a jaw-dropping amount for a sociological study that only surveyed 2,988 total people, only 250 of which were labelled, inappropriately and unscientifically, as having been raised by “same sex parents.”

Witherspoon/NOM have now fully weaponized that scientifically invalid study, and are deploying it pitilessly against gay people and their rights. You can read a letter signed by over 200 Ph.D.s and M.D.s, complaining about the study’s lack of intellectual integrity as well as about the suspicious circumstances under which it got published, here.

To read about the circumstances of the corrupt peer review through which the Witherspoon/NOM commissioned anti-gay hate speech got published in a scientific journal, go here.

Whereas Witherspoon and NOM share top officials in common, NOM is a 501(c)4 while Witherspoon is a tax exempt 501(c)3. There is a strong appearance that in its funding of the Regnerus “study,” Witherspoon and NOM were playing a tax laws shell game, paying for the Regnerus study through the 501(c)3 Witherspoon Institute, even though the study was conceived primarily for use as a NOM weapon to defeat President Obama. To read details about Witherspoon/NOM’s possible violations of IRS tax laws, go here.

As you see, NOM knows no boundaries for its violations of human decency in attacking its LGBT victims.

NOM now wants to settle with the Fair Political Practices Commission on its 18 counts of campaign finance law violations — for only $49,000 —  so it can move ahead as though nothing had happened, continuing to violate laws in its hateful and unwarranted attacks against gay human beings. As mentioned above, in state after state, NOM has apparently violated election finance laws, and then tied up the courts bringing apparently frivolous challenges to the laws, not caring about the waste of tax payers’ resources in pursuing those apparently frivolous cases through appeals. If all of these NOM election law violations-related cases had been brought in a single court system, instead of the court systems of many different states, a court almost surely would already have barred NOM from filing any such cases in the future.

NOM must now be given an effective deterrent penalty for having broken at least 18 of California’s state campaign finance laws.

A wrist-slap, easy-does-it settlement of $49,000 does not faze the malicious anti-gay bigots of NOM one iota. The “planning grant” they gave for a weaponized, fraudulent study booby trapped against gay parents was $55,000, leading to a full study grant of $785,000. And as mentioned above, NOM meanwhile is spending umpteen millions upon tens of millions around the country and the world, demonizing sexual minorities on the basis of known falsehoods (i.e. demonizing lies), hate-mongering and inspiring to violence against us.

NOM is laughing in advance at the California Fair Political Practices Commission, believing that the Commission will settle with NOM instead of referring NOM to appropriate authorities for criminal prosecution.

The California Fair Political Practices Commission absolutely must not allow NOM to have the last laugh in their 18 violations of state campaign finance laws.

Sincerely,

Scott Rose

New York City-based novelist and freelance writer Scott Rose’s LGBT-interest by-line has appeared on Advocate.com, PoliticusUSA.com, The New York Blade, Queerty.com, Girlfriends and in numerous additional venues. Among his other interests are the arts, boating and yachting, wine and food, travel, poker and dogs. His “Mr. David Cooper’s Happy Suicide” is about a New York City advertising executive assigned to a condom account.

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.

News

DeSantis Declares NYC ‘Reeks’ of Pot Amid Florida’s Battle for Legalization and 2024 Voters

Published

on

Standing behind a sign that says “Freedom Month,” Florida’s Republican Governor Ron DeSantis on Tuesday blasted efforts to pass a constitutional amendment in the Sunshine State to make recreational use of marijuana legal. DeSantis also denounced efforts to pass a ballot initiative that would make abortion legal in his state.

“Look what’s happened in Denver, Colorado. Look what’s happened in Los Angeles, New York City. You know, I’ve talked to people that have moved from New York and they’re like, they used to have, you know, an apartment somewhere and it used to (smell differently). Now, what does it reek of? It reeks of marijuana. I don’t want the state to be reeking of marijuana,” DeSantis said (video below), as Florida Politics reported.

The Florida governor’s remarks come on the same day the Biden Administration announced plans to decrease the classification level of marijuana, which is currently listed in the same category as heroin, methamphetamines, and LSD. The proposed reclassification, which NBC News reports is expected to be approved, would move marijuana to the same category as Tylenol, codeine, and steroids.

In 2022 and 2023, President Joe Biden pardoned thousands of people serving time in prison for simple pot possession.

READ MORE: Noem Doubles Down With ‘Legal Cover’ For Shooting Her Puppy to Death

DeSantis’ remarks also come just days after he met with Donald Trump in a private meeting designed to “bury the hatchet,” and help the ex-president’s re-election efforts. The Florida governor ran in the Republican presidential primary against Trump, and both unleashed strong attacks. DeSantis, who is term-limited and cannot run again for governor in 2026, is expected to help Trump with fundraising and help him try to win the state of Florida.

“DeSantis kisses the ring in Miami meeting with Trump and it might just pay off,” the Miami Herald Editorial Board noted Tuesday. “Kissing the ring — to America’s detriment — has worked in the past, and it might work again for Florida’s ambitious governor.”

The Biden campaign believes Florida is in play, and political analysts say with both abortion and marijuana on the ballot there, Florida is a battleground state and one the President could win. NBC News reported earlier this month the Biden team sees Florida as “winnable.”

“’Make no mistake: Florida is not an easy state to win, but it is a winnable one for President Biden, especially given Trump’s weak, cash-strapped campaign, and serious vulnerabilities within his coalition,’ Julie Chávez Rodríguez, Biden’s campaign manager, wrote in a memo,” NBC News had first reported.

READ MORE: Trump Would Not Oppose State Pregnancy Surveillance or Abortion Prosecution

Calling it “a sign that he is serious about winning the state,” Axios reported last week the Biden campaign is opening a field office in Florida.

On Tuesday the Associated Press reported that “Florida Democrats hope young voters will be driven to the polls by ballot amendments legalizing marijuana and enshrining abortion rights. They hope the more tolerant views of young voters on those issues will reverse an active voter registration edge of nearly 900,000 for Republicans in Florida, which has turned from the ultimate swing state in 2000 to reliably Republican in recent years.”

Watch DeSantis’ remarks below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Pretty Strong Views’: Trump Vows ‘Big Statement’ on Abortion Pill in the ‘Next Week or Two’

Continue Reading

OPINION

‘Pretty Strong Views’: Trump Vows ‘Big Statement’ on Abortion Pill in the ‘Next Week or Two’

Published

on

Donald Trump claimed he has “pretty strong views” on the medication abortion drug mifepristone, vowed he would make a statement on it in two weeks, and when he missed his self-imposed deadline the ex-president said he would do so in one week, according to a TIME magazine cover story interview and transcript published Tuesday.

Abortion has become a critical election issue, with Democrats fully supporting a woman’s right to choose and most Republicans strongly opposed. Some Republicans and those on the far-right support a ban, are attempting to ban, or refusing to protect in-vitro fertilization (IVF), as well as mifepristone, which is widely-used, safe, and available by mail in many states.

In the wide-ranging interview with TIME’s Eric Cortellessa, Trump made clear he would not weigh in on a national abortion ban, insisting it could not happen because the Supreme Court sent the issue to the states. Several Republicans and far-right activists have openly promoted national abortion bans.

Trump, according to a transcript of his interview TIME published, also appeared unfamiliar with – or unable or unwilling to discuss – some issues that have been an important part of the national conversation, including IVF, mifepristone, and attaching legal “personhood” status to fetuses, or embryos, in the womb.

RELATED: Trump Would Not Oppose State Pregnancy Surveillance or Abortion Prosecution

“Your allies in the Republican Study Committee, which makes up about 80% of the GOP caucus, have included the Life of Conception act in their 2025 budget proposal. The measure would grant full legal rights to embryos. Is that your position as well?” TIME’s Cortellessa asked Trump.

“Say it again. What?” the ex-president replied.

“The Life at Conception Act would grant full legal rights to embryos, included in their 2025 budget proposal. Is that your position?” Cortellessa explained, asking again.

“I’m leaving everything up to the states. The states are going to be different. Some will say yes. Some will say no. Texas is different than Ohio,” Trump replied, ignoring that the bill is a federal bill sponsored by Republicans in the House and Senate.

“Would you veto that bill?” Cortellessa pressed.

“I don’t have to do anything about vetoes, because we now have it back in the states,” Trump insisted, not giving a direct answer. “They’re gonna make those determinations.”

Cortellessa’s next question: “Do you think women should be able to get the abortion pill mifepristone?”

READ MORE: ‘Won’t Stop Him’: Judge Threatens Trump With Jail for Gag Order Breach

Again, Trump refused to give a direct answer.

“Well, I have an opinion on that, but I’m not going to explain. I’m not gonna say it yet. But I have pretty strong views on that. And I’ll be releasing it probably over the next week,” he said, unwilling to even engage in any conversation about it.

“Well, this is a big question, Mr. President,” Cortellessa pressed, “because your allies have called for enforcement of the Comstock Act, which prohibits the mailing of drugs used for abortions by mail. The Biden Department of Justice has not enforced it. Would your Department of Justice enforce it?”

“I will be making a statement on that over the next 14 days,” Trump vowed.

“You will?” the reporter again pressed.

“Yeah, I have a big statement on that. I feel very strongly about it. I actually think it’s a very important issue,” Trump claimed, refusing to discuss it further.

TIME reports the original Trump interview took place at Mar-a-Lago on April 12, and a follow up interview was conducted by phone April 27.

“Last time we spoke, you said you had an announcement coming over the next two weeks regarding your policy on the abortion pill mifepristone. You haven’t made an announcement yet. Would you like to do so now?” Cortellessa asked Trump.

“No, I haven’t,” he acknowledged. “I’ll be doing it over the next week or two. But I don’t think it will be shocking, frankly. But I’ll be doing it over the next week or two. We’re for helping women, Eric. I am for helping women. You probably saw that the IVF came out very well. And, you know, I set a policy on it, and the Republicans immediately adopted the policy.”

READ MORE: Noem Doubles Down With ‘Legal Cover’ For Shooting Her Puppy to Death

 

 

 

Continue Reading

OPINION

Trump Would Not Oppose State Pregnancy Surveillance or Abortion Prosecution

Published

on

With little more than six months until Election Day, Donald Trump is preparing for an “authoritarian” presidency, and a massive, multi-million dollar operation called Project 2025, organized by The Heritage Foundation and headed by a former top Trump White House official, is proposing what it would like to be his agenda. In its 920-page policy manual the word “abortion” appears, by NCRM’s count, nearly 200 times.

Trump appears to hold a more narrow grasp of the issue of abortion, and is holding on to the framing he recently settled on, which he hoped would end debate on the issue after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. One day before the Arizona Supreme Court ruled an 1864 law banning abortion was still legal and enforceable, Trump declared states have total control over abortion and can do whatever they like.

Despite the results of that framing, Trump is sticking with that policy.

In a set of interviews with TIME‘s Eric Cortellessa, published Tuesday, the four-times indicted ex-president said he would not stop states from monitoring all pregnancies within their borders and prosecuting anyone who violates any abortion ban, if he were to again become president. He also refused to weigh in on a nationwide abortion ban or on medication abortion.

READ MORE: ‘Won’t Stop Him’: Judge Threatens Trump With Jail for Gag Order Breach

Recently, Trump backed away from endorsing a nationwide abortion ban, but in the past he has said there should be “punishment” for women who have abortions. The group effectively creating what could become his polices, The Heritage Foundation and its Project 2025, fully support a ban on abortion.

The scope of the TIME interviews was extensive.

“What emerged in two interviews with Trump, and conversations with more than a dozen of his closest advisers and confidants, were the outlines of an imperial presidency that would reshape America and its role in the world,” Cortellessa writes in his article.

“To carry out a deportation operation designed to remove more than 11 million people from the country, Trump told me, he would be willing to build migrant detention camps and deploy the U.S. military, both at the border and inland. He would let red states monitor women’s pregnancies and prosecute those who violate abortion bans. He would, at his personal discretion, withhold funds appropriated by Congress, according to top advisers. He would be willing to fire a U.S. Attorney who doesn’t carry out his order to prosecute someone, breaking with a tradition of independent law enforcement that dates from America’s founding.”

TIME’s Cortellessa also notes that Trump “is weighing pardons for every one of his supporters accused of attacking the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, more than 800 of whom have pleaded guilty or been convicted by a jury. He might not come to the aid of an attacked ally in Europe or Asia if he felt that country wasn’t paying enough for its own defense. He would gut the U.S. civil service, deploy the National Guard to American cities as he sees fit, close the White House pandemic-preparedness office, and staff his Administration with acolytes who back his false assertion that the 2020 election was stolen.”

READ MORE: ‘Let’s Get a Warrant for Her Backyard’: Noem ‘Done Politically’ Right Wing Pundits Say

On abortion, Trump has repeatedly bragged he personally ended Roe v. Wade, which was a nearly 50-year old landmark Supreme Court ruling that found women have a constitutional right to abortion, and by extension, bodily autonomy.

But Trump has also “sought to defuse a potent campaign issue for the Democrats by saying he wouldn’t sign a federal ban. In our interview at Mar-a-Lago, he declines to commit to vetoing any additional federal restrictions if they came to his desk. More than 20 states now have full or partial abortion bans, and Trump says those policies should be left to the states to do what they want, including monitoring women’s pregnancies. ‘I think they might do that,’ he says.”

“When I ask whether he would be comfortable with states prosecuting women for having abortions beyond the point the laws permit, he says, ‘It’s irrelevant whether I’m comfortable or not. It’s totally irrelevant, because the states are going to make those decisions.’ President Biden has said he would fight state anti-abortion measures in court and with regulation,” Cortellessa adds.

Trump in his TIME interview continued to hold on to the convenient claim as president he would have absolutely nothing to do with abortion.

But “Trump’s allies don’t plan to be passive on abortion if he returns to power. The Heritage Foundation has called for enforcement of a 19th century statute that would outlaw the mailing of abortion pills. The Republican Study Committee (RSC), which includes more than 80% of the House GOP conference, included in its 2025 budget proposal the Life at Conception Act, which says the right to life extends to ‘the moment of fertilization.’ I ask Trump if he would veto that bill if it came to his desk. ‘I don’t have to do anything about vetoes,’ Trump says, ‘because we now have it back in the states.'”

That’s inaccurate, if a national abortion ban, or any legislation on women’s reproductive rights, comes to his desk. And they will, if there’s a Republican majority in the House and Senate.

READ MORE: Hunter Biden Plans Lawsuit Against Fox News Amid ‘Conspiracy of Disinformation’

Brooke Goren, Deputy Communications Director for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) writes, “In the same interview, Trump:
– Repeatedly refuses to say he wouldn’t sign a national ban
– Left the door open to signing legislation that could ban IVF
– Stood by his allies, who are making plans to unilaterally ban medication abortion nationwide if he’s elected.”

Cortellessa ends his piece with this thought: “Whether or not he was kidding about bringing a tyrannical end to our 248-year experiment in democracy, I ask him, Don’t you see why many Americans see such talk of dictatorship as contrary to our most cherished principles? Trump says no. Quite the opposite, he insists. ‘I think a lot of people like it.'”

The Bulwark’s Bill Kristol, once a hard-core conservative Republican, now a Democrat as of 2020, served up this take on TIME’s Trump interview and overview of a second Trump reign.

“Some of us: A second term really would be far more dangerous than his first, it would be real authoritarianism–with more than a touch of fascism.

Trump apologists: No way, calm down.

Trump: Yup, authoritarianism all the way!”

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.