Last night our Chairman John Eastman appeared on Greta Van Susteren to discuss the IRS leak of NOM's documents:
Last night our Chairman John Eastman appeared on Greta Van Susteren to discuss the IRS leak of NOM's documents:
NOM's Chairman John Eastman has published a column in USAToday which we urge you to read and share!
"...For the IRS to leak any organization's tax return to its political opponents is an outrageous breach of ethics and, if proven, constitutes a felony. Every organization — liberal and conservative — should shudder at the idea of the IRS playing politics with its confidential tax return information. But the situation here is even more egregious because the head of the HRC was at the time serving as a national co-chair of President Obama's re-election campaign.
The release of NOM's confidential tax return to the Human Rights Campaign is the canary in the coal mine of IRS corruption. Contrary to assertions that the targeting of Tea Party groups was an error in judgment by low-level IRS bureaucrats, the release of NOM's confidential data to a group headed by an Obama campaign co-chair suggests the possibility of complicity at the highest levels of politics and government. This wasn't a low-level error in judgment; it was a conscious act to reward a prominent Obama supporter while punishing an opponent.
That's the reason the IRS has not been very interested in getting to the bottom of what happened. Federal investigators have interviewed NOM officials about the matter, but our efforts to find out what has become of the investigation have been stonewalled at every turn."
Our press release yesterday is now top news on Drudge Report this morning:
That headline links to this story on Brietbart.com:
One of President Barack Obama's re-election campaign co-chairmen used a leaked document from the IRS to attack GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney during the 2012 election, according to the National Organization for Marriage (NOM).
NOM, a pro-traditional marriage organization, claims the IRS leaked their 2008 confidential financial documents to the rival Human Rights Campaign. Those NOM documents were published on the Huffington Post on March 30, 2012. At that time, Joe Solmonese, a left-wing activist and Huffington Post contributor, was the president of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC). Solmonese was also a 2012 Obama campaign co-chairman.
... “Not only has Romney signed NOM’s radical marriage pledge, now we know he’s one of the donors that NOM has been so desperate to keep secret all these years,” Solmonese added.
Solmonese resigned his position at HRC the next day and took up a position as an Obama campaign co-chair.
James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal lists our case as a possible example of the IRS targeting groups for ideological reasons:
• In March 2012, the Puffington Host published a confidential form that the National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex marriage, had filed with the IRS. The website obtained the document from the Human Rights Campaign, a pro-same-sex-marriage outfit. In a press release issued today, NOM says its analysis of the images "has determined that the documents came directly from the Internal Revenue Service."
Matt K. Lewis of The Daily Caller points out that most reporters have neglected to report that the IRS is guilty not only of targeting conservative groups, but also of leaking NOM's private tax documents -- clearly a broader investigation is needed:
A little over a year ago, I reported that, ”It is likely that someone at the Internal Revenue Service illegally leaked confidential donor information showing a contribution from Mitt Romney’s political action committee to the National Organization for Marriage, says the group.”
Now — on the heels of news the IRS’s apology for having targeted conservative groups — NOM is renewing their demand that the Internal Revenue Service reveal the identity of the people responsible.
“There is little question that one or more employees at the IRS stole our confidential tax return and leaked it to our political enemies, in violation of federal law,” said NOM’s president Brian Brow, in a prepared statement. “The only questions are who did it, and whether there was any knowledge or coordination between people in the White House, the Obama reelection campaign and the Human Rights Campaign. We and the American people deserve answers.”
The National Organization for Marriage hopes revelations about the IRS unfairly targeting conservative groups can revitalize an investigation into who leaked its donor information last year.
“This is what happens in the Soviet Union,” NOM President Brian Brown told POLITICO on Monday. “This is not what happens in the United States of America.”
In April 2012, the Huffington Post and the Human Rights Campaign posted documents showing GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney donated $10,000 to NOM in 2008. The anti-gay marriage group immediately cried foul and called for the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration — the same investigators who are set to release a report on the IRS targeting later this week — to investigate, accusing IRS employees of leaking the documents.
... Brown said the group wants a congressional hearing to look into the document release, since the group’s attempts to use the Freedom of Information Act to stay updated on the case have been unsuccessful.
“Without a congressional hearing and Congress’ subpoena power, where are we?” Brown asked. “All we’re getting is what [the IRS] wants to say.”
A former rural Iowa court official pleaded guilty Monday to forgery for filing false documents to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple from central Florida, in the first case of its kind in Iowa.
... The resolution drew criticism from Joab Penney of Williston, Fla., who says Van Nice's actions duped him out of $150 and gave him an unending legal headache. Penney said he was outraged when court officials advised him Monday he should hire an attorney to petition to void his marriage license - which he said should have never been issued in the first place.
...The Florida men discovered the fraud months later, when Penney contacted an attorney to seek a divorce. The attorney was suspicious because the men had never been to Iowa and Van Nice mailed the application materials from her home, not the courthouse. The attorney contacted authorities asking for an investigation.Penney said he now wants to marry a woman in Florida, but officials there say that he's legally married to Parker and needs to obtain a divorce first.
...Penney said he has been frustrated by the lack of answers from officials in Iowa and the legal limbo he's in.
"I want to get married here to a woman, and I can't," he said. "It's a major headache. I've changed my lifestyle because of all of this. It has offended me that much."
Ben Shapiro writes at TownHall:
This week, Wesley Smith of the Weekly Standard reported that California would be considering AB 460, a bill that would mandate group insurance coverage for so-called gay and lesbian "infertility." What in the world does that bizarre phrase mean? It doesn't mean situations in which two members of a lesbian couple are both infertile and incapable of conception using some third party's sperm. It doesn't mean situations in which two gay men are both infertile and incapable of impregnating a surrogate mother. It means situations in which gay or lesbian couples can't make a baby by having sex with each other.
In other words, every single gay and lesbian couple on the planet.
The way the law works, gay and lesbian couples would simply have to testify that they have been having sex for a year without producing a child to be considered "infertile," which is idiotic, since baby-making requires necessary components missing in homosexual activity. But nature is irrelevant here. Even though both men and women were, to borrow Lady Gaga's phrase, "born this way," political correctness trumps nature.
The Los Angeles Times is obviously no fan of the Boy Scouts of America's policy -- but they are even less a fan of punitive laws meant to single out one organization for views that politicians dislike:
"The Boy Scouts' long-standing refusal to admit gay members is deplorable and offensive. But it's also legal. Just because we — or California legislators — might disagree with the discriminatory path the Boy Scouts has taken doesn't mean the organization should be singled out from other nonprofits to lose its tax-exempt status.
... If legislators can go after the Scouts for engaging in legal (though offensive) behavior, what group will they go after next?"
Kellie Fiedorek is litigation counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom. She writes in the Washington Examiner against the claim made by gay marriage advocates that they are "politically powerless" and therefore need the courts to strike down laws protecting marriage:
In their recently filed brief before the U.S. Supreme Court, advocates for redefining marriage argued that "gay men and lesbians are a suspect class" and thus need special judicial protection of the "politically powerless."
But making claims to be a minority in need of special judicial protection while simultaneously enjoying the patronage of some of our country's most powerful people, corporations and political entities is disingenuous.
...Unlike African-Americans, who struggled for full recognition and participation in society, homosexual activists and their goals are lionized by practically every powerful cultural institution and center of wealth in America today.
Their political and social war chest -- which includes the backing of Fortune 500 companies and other well-known businesses, politicians and celebrities -- is a far cry from the batons, fire hoses and tear gas that black Americans faced.
Like clockwork, those who disagree with gay marriage are being fined and forced out of the public square -- by the state-imposed redefinition of marriage:
Attorney General Bob Ferguson has filed a consumer protection lawsuit against a florist who refused to provide wedding flowers to a same-sex couple.
The complaint was filed in Benton County on Tuesday against Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene's Flowers and Gifts in Richland. The lawsuit is in response to a March 1 incident where she refused service to longtime customer Robert Ingersoll. Stutzman did not return a call Tuesday night seeking comment. Ferguson had sent a letter on March 28 asking her to comply with the law, but said Stutzman's attorneys responded Monday saying she would challenge any state action to enforce the law. Washington state voters upheld a same-sex marriage law in November, and the law took effect in December. The state's anti-discrimination laws were expanded in 2006 to include sexual orientation.
Ferguson seeks a permanent injunction requiring the store to comply with the state's consumer protection laws and seeks at least $2,000 in fines. (AP)
“I think you’ll see, hopefully, a chastened Supreme Court is not going to make the same mistake in the (current) cases as they did in Roe v. Wade,” Santorum told The Des Moines Register in a telephone interview. “I’m hopeful the Supreme Court learned its lesson about trying to predict where the American public is going on issues and trying to find rights in the Constitution that sit with the fancy of the day.”
... Asked what he thinks about the two Midwest senators who have recently backed gay marriage, Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio and Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois, Santorum said some Republicans splintered off in the late 1960s and early 1970s to support abortion rights when the courts “started mucking around with pro-life statutes at the state level.”
“I’m sure you could go back and read stories, oh, you know, ‘The Republican party’s going to change. This is the future.’ Obviously that didn’t happen,” Santorum said. “I think you’re going to see the same stories written now and it’s not going to happen. The Republican party’s not going to change on this issue. In my opinion it would be suicidal if it did.”
Mission Public Affairs President Frank Schubert, who ran the successful Proposition 8 campaign, argues in The Blaze that the Supreme Court will issue a ruling on Prop 8 and will ultimately choose to uphold it:
The United States Supreme Court held oral arguments two weeks ago concerning California’s Proposition 8 and, predictably, the media pack have all come to the same conclusion. Their meme is that the Court will decline to rule on the merits as to whether Proposition 8 unconstitutionally defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Most base their conclusion on the comment by Justice Anthony Kennedy wondering if the case was properly granted. I believe the media pack has it wrong, failing to appreciate the box that Justice Kennedy likely finds himself in once the Court decided to grant review.
It may very well be that Justice Kennedy would prefer not to decide the Proposition 8 case on the merits. Kennedy is widely viewed as the potential swing vote on the constitutionality of marriage. Despite his lament about having to arbitrate the issue, Justice Kennedy effectively has little choice but to decide whether marriage as it has always been defined somehow violates the constitution.
Once the Court decided to grant review (Certiorari) in the Prop 8 case, Justice Kennedy’s hand was effectively forced. This is true for four key reasons.
For all these reasons, I believe that Justice Kennedy will ultimately agree with Justice Scalia that they have “already crossed that river” and now must reach the merits of the constitutionality of Proposition 8. So then what?
There was nothing in the oral argument to suggest that anything approaching a majority of the court is prepared to find a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage. That being the case, I feel very good about the status of Prop 8 when the Court issues their ruling in the coming months. I also suspect that the media pack is likely never to admit their reporting of oral arguments were off target. More than likely they will immediately pivot, saying winning the most important victory for marriage ever achieved doesn’t really matter because – as they’ve been claiming for years — same-sex marriage is somehow “inevitable.” That’s another false meme, but we’ll deal with that one later, with the wind of a Supreme Court victory at our backs.
Carson Hallowoy argues in The Public Discourse that "The oral arguments on Proposition 8 at the Supreme Court suggest that there is very good reason to believe that the declaration of a “right” to same-sex marriage will set us on the path to polygamy":
Opponents of same-sex marriage resist it because it amounts to redefining marriage, but also because it will invite future redefinitions. If we embrace same-sex marriage, they argue, society will have surrendered any reasonable grounds on which to continue forbidding polygamy, for example.
In truth, proponents of same-sex marriage have never offered a very good response to this concern. This problem was highlighted at the Supreme Court last week in oral argument over California’s Proposition 8, the state constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman.
Surprisingly, the polygamy problem that same-sex marriage presents was raised by an Obama appointee, the liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Sotomayor interrupted the presentation of anti-Prop 8 litigator Theodore Olson to pose the following question: If marriage is a fundamental right in the way proponents of same-sex marriage contend, “what state restrictions could ever exist,” for example, “with respect to the number of people . . . that could get married?”
This weekend our President Brian Brown appeared on Meet the Press to defend marriage and counter the lie that redefining marriage is inevitable:
On the question of marriage and the Supreme Court he said:
"The truth is the truth. The truth is marriage is based upon the distinction between men and women, husbands and wives, mothers and fathers. Marriage is the one institution that brings together the great halves of humanity male and female in one institution to connect husbands and wives together and to any children they may bear. The question before the court is not only on this issue of what is marriage, marriage is by definition the union of a man and a woman and apart from all this inevitability talk, 31 states have voted to say that is the truth, they've embedded it in their state constitutions, only 4 have voted against it. There's a myth that somehow this is inevitable, look, North Carolina passed its constitutional amendment 8 months ago by 61%. The polls in California had us at 36% support for traditional marriage but when people came out they voted to support traditional marriage so the real issue is, is the court going to launch another culture war by trumping the votes of these states and of the duly-elected members of Congress who passed DOMA."
On the question of whether the Supreme Court will rule on Prop 8:
"I don't think the court is going to punt, the court is going to answer the question, the question is simple: 'do the people of the state of California, do the people of the states of this country have the right to votes and voices heard, or is the court going to trash over 50 million votes.' The lower court ruling wasn't just about Proposition 8 and what is being brought forward is this myth that somehow embedded in our Constitution something the founders didn't see and we haven't seen up until now 'there is a right to redefine the very nature of marriage'."