One News Now, allies manipulate numbers on referendum count

Apparently the recent decision to stop a referendum against a Montgomery County law that would protect the transgender community have members of the anti-gay industry a bit loopy.

Check out this headline. It's insulting and funny at the same time:

Sexual Deviants Given Green Light in Maryland

Court decides 900,000 petition signers can't challenge the controversial "gender identity" law allowing any man to use the women's shower by just claiming he felt like a woman at the time.

900,000 petition signers?

The blog in question claims to have received the story from the Washington Post. However, if you look at the Post article (feel free to do so by this link) you will see that there is no mention of any number of petition signers.

So where did the blog get the 900,000 number? Why from my favorite phony news page - One News Now:

Baltimore residents have lost their battle against an ordinance protecting transgendered people.

Under the controversial "gender identity" law, a man would be allowed to walk into a women's restroom or shower room claiming he believes himself to be a woman, essentially opening the door for rape or sexual molestation. In July a lower Montgomery County court agreed more than 900,000 petition signers had the right to see it on the ballot to choose whether to overturn it -- but it was appealed.

So much for truth.

Now the reasoning behind the decision has not been published as of yet, but to get a good idea of the situation, I looked at teachthefacts.org, a web page created by those fighting the referendum.
This is what was said before the decision was rendered. As you can say, the number of petition signers are far below 900,000:

The Citizens for a Responsible Whatever were told by the county Board of Elections that they needed 25,001 signatures to get a referendum on the November ballot to relegalize discrimination on the basis of gender identity in Montgomery County. They got that many and a few extra, submitted them on time, and did their victory dance. Opponents of the referendum went through the signatures, found a lot of problems, and sued the Board for not correctly verifying petition signatures. In the process of arguing back and forth in court, it came out that the Board of Elections had given the CRW the wrong number, and now they didn't have enough. The Board had counted only active voters, ignoring the considerable number of voters who are registered but have not voted in a general election recently. Today, even the Board's attorney, Kevin Karpinski, said, "The sponsors didn't get enough signatures." But -- the Circuit Court judge said that the complaint had been filed too late, and so it didn't matter that there weren't enough signatures.

So the court might need to require the Board to enforce the law, if they rule that because the CRW failed to produce 27,615 valid signatures -- the actual target number based on all registered voters -- the referendum should not be on the ballot.

This fudging of the numbers by One News Now doesn't surprise me. Since when has this phony news site ever let accuracy get in the way of a good "those evil people are out to hurt us decent Christians" spin.

Oink, oink - Give me a break

Put your nose up in the air and sniff.

That smell you are taking in is the 2008 election. I was wondering when the mess was going to start.

Who knew it would be pig mess?

It's a real shame that the campaign has come to this. I used to think that John McCain was a man with integrity, but yet during this campaign, I have seen him forsake all forms of decency including resorting to the tactics used against him in South Carolina in 2000.

On September 11, 2008, we will be commemorating the worse attack on American soil in history. On September 17, 2008, I will be commemorating the worse day of my life - when my father was murdered during an attempted prison break.

Therefore, I absolutely refuse to comment further about pigs and lipstick. I will just cite a line from the Boondocks:

This here is some bullshit!!!!

I would rather spotlight a good piece of news out of Florida. A judge overturned the state's ban on gay adoption:

A Florida judge shook up that state’s 31-year-old ban on gay adoption, ruling it unconstitutional. But the ruling doesn’t necessarily mean that the state, one of two remaining that forbid gay adoption, will overturn the statewide ban.

Monroe Circuit Court Judge David J. Audlin Jr.'s decision will allow an openly gay Key West foster parent to adopt the teenage boy he has raised since 2001, according to the Guardian.co.uk.

Florida’s ban on gay adoption has been declared unconstitutional twice before in 1991, but an upcoming gay adoption hearing in Miami, could further challenge the law.

Audlin stated that the adoption was in the 13-year-old, special needs boy’s “best interest.” He also said the law that bars gays and lesbians from adopting children is contrary to the state constitution because it singles out and punishes a group of people.

Victory in Maryland - Anti-gay referendum is stopped!!!!

Everyone is either losing their minds over the election or getting into the act of losing their minds.

Our friend Peter LaBarbera (who never really had that much of a mind to begin with) has been posting sporadically and those posts are attacking the Huffington Post. Apparently Peter is trying to spin a "they are after Sarah Palin because they want to bash Christians" line.

I think he is pissed cause the Hurricane Gustav stopped Southern Decadence from taking place.

Well in the midst of the prognosticating and nailbiting over polls, a bit of good news just took place in Maryland:

Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) applauded a Maryland Appeal Court ruling today which dismissed attempts to roll back landmark protections for transgender residents in Montgomery County, Maryland, by way of a November ballot initiative. The court's unanimous ruling ends a campaign by anti-transgender activists to strip the county's civil rights law of protections based on gender identity. The law was amended in November 2007 and, because of today's ruling, will now be enacted to include the transgender community.

"The anti-transgender campaign in Montgomery County was based on bigotry and fueled by misinformation," said Jody M. Huckaby, executive director of PFLAG. "It was being forced onto the ballot with no regard for state law or the fundamental rights of our transgender neighbors and allies. Today's ruling sends a clear message that opponents of equality are not above the law, and our transgender loved ones are not below it. Montgomery County's civil rights law offers important protections to transgender and gender-variant people. We join our allies in Maryland and the transgender community in celebrating its long over-due enactment."

I blogged about this referendum drive before. You will remember that those pushing for it was able to get enough signatures by falsely claiming that the law will allow men to go into women's lockerrooms and restrooms. The proponents said that all the men had to do was say "I feel like a woman."

This was the same group that organized a phony moral panic by claiming that a man dressed as a woman had entered an local lockerroom gym. Of course no one saw the incident but it caused a lot of controversy.

In this crazy world, it's nice to see good triumph over bullshit.

Student GOP leader smears Obama via old reliable racial slur

I defy anyone to say that Obama's race won't be a factor in this election. At least the young man didn't use code words like "reverse discrimination," "welfare queen," or (dare I say it) "community organizer."

Student GOP leader resigns over Obama remark

The leader of a statewide group of college Republicans has been forced to resign after posting racially insensitive comments about Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama on the Internet.

Adam LaDuca, 21, the former executive director of the Pennsylvania Federation of College Republicans, wrote on his Facebook page in late July that Obama has "a pair of lips so large he could float half of Cuba to the shores of Miami (and probably would.)"

LaDuca, who previously had called Martin Luther King Jr. a "pariah" and a "fraud," also wrote: "And man, if sayin' someone has large lips is a racial slur, then we're ALL in trouble."

The College Republicans asked LaDuca to resign after his remarks were publicized by the Pennsylvania Progressive, a blog written by a Democratic committeeman from Berks County. The group announced LaDuca's resignation on its Web site Friday.


Anti-gay industry tries to shore up its base

Those who have read this blog know what I am about to say:

I hate Mondays.

This Monday has an interesting note to it. I am currently trying to recover from the Republican National Convention. And in the middle of my attempts comes this news:

CHICAGO -- Declaring that clergy have a constitutional right to endorse political candidates from their pulpits, the socially conservative Alliance Defense Fund is recruiting several dozen pastors to do just that on Sept. 28, in defiance of Internal Revenue Service rules.

The effort by the Arizona-based legal consortium is designed to trigger an IRS investigation that ADF lawyers would then challenge in federal court. The ultimate goal is to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to throw out a 54-year-old ban on political endorsements by tax-exempt houses of worship.

"For so long, there has been this cloud of intimidation over the church," ADF attorney Erik Stanley said. "It is the job of the pastors of America to debate the proper role of church in society. It's not for the government to mandate the role of church in society."

Yet an opposing collection of Christian and Jewish clergy will petition the IRS today to stop the protest before it starts, calling the ADF's "Pulpit Initiative" an assault on the rule of law and the separation of church and state.

Backed by three former top IRS officials, the group also wants the IRS to determine whether the nonprofit ADF is risking its own tax-exempt status by organizing an "inappropriate, unethical and illegal" series of political endorsements.

I am not against churches inviting candidates to speak to the congregation (as long as they extend the invitation equitably) and I am certainly not against objective voter registration drives at churches nor am I against churches organizing carpools to get members to the polls.

But a pastor advocating a particular candidate from the pulpit is dangerous.

Regardless as to how the ADF tries to spin the situation, the only reason why it is trying to overturn this law is so that James Dobson, Rod Parsley, and company can better organize churches to elect their candidates to public office.

I find that sleazy.

Pastors are the leaders of the church, so they don't represent themselves per se, even if they stand in the pulpit and say "in my personal opinion, you should support so and so."

The pastor is still speaking as the leader of the church. Anything he or she does in that role affects more than just themselves.

Futhermore, I don't like the implications behind pastors advocating political candidates.

Pastors are the spiritual leaders in the community. What message are they sending by supporting a particular candidate - "God wants you to support so and so?"

Encouraging pastors to do this reduces the integrity of religion as far as I am concerned. Religion and spirituality has to do with souls and your relationship with God, not electoral candidates and certainly not trying to "win a nation for Christ."

Seems to me that if Jesus wanted this nation, he could take it without any of our help.

But yet in this country, there is this nasty idea that Jesus somehow said, "take up your cross and follow me and I will give you a nice car, nice house, two point five children, and a Republican in the White House every four years."

Humbleness and simplicity are replaced with warehouse sized churches filled with egotistical people thinking that God has blessed them above all others, demagogues waving Bibles as they confuse spiritual completeness with earthly conquest, and words like "morality," and "values" used to create a caste systems ruled by unrealistic characteristics of family.

And on top of all of this, some Christians propagate the lie that they are somehow "second class citizens in America."

I don't think it has come to that. But I wish these so-called Christians remember that "pride goeth before a fall" and sooner or later "you reap what you sow."

Now the fun really begins

Well I survived the Republican National Convention with my heart intact. But as luck would have it, us lgbts in South Carolina are going to be gearing up for Gay Pride that will be coming up this month.

And on the heels of the "South Carolina is so gay" controversy, things promises to be very interesting. Especially seeing that RuPaul will be performing.

This year I have made up my mind - I will not be a parade monitor. Every year I volunteer to walk alongside the floats and the marchers in order to keep the parade going and keep them from the protestors.

To hell with all of that - this year, I am going to ride on a float.

But there are other important things to consider.

Like what am I going to wear.

Seriously though, I doubt that the following will be my last thoughts regarding the upcoming election, but I still feel the need to voice them:

1. John McCain's speech - I told myself that I wasn't going to watch it. But I succumbed to temptation and turned the channel.

To put it nicely and without bias - John McCain's speech reminded me of Tucker Carlson on "Dancing with the Stars."

Forget gay marriage, can't we get a constitutional amendment against McCain making speeches?

2. If Sarah Carlin is so damned vivacious and exciting, then why won't the McCain camp let her do an interview?

3. About the Log Cabin Republicans endorsing McCain - A popular anti-gay industry stereotype about gays is about how we loved to get screwed. This has to be the first time I have ever seen a gay group try to prove this stereotype through its political practices.

Until Monday (or barring something monumental happening), I am out of here.

UPDATE - I told you that community organizers remark was going to bite Palin in the ass

From ThinkProgress.org:

Last night during her speech to the Republican National Convention, Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) sought to play up her experience as mayor of a small town in Alaska by mocking community organizing:

PALIN: And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves. I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a “community organizer,” except that you have actual responsibilities.
Today, the nation’s leading organization’s responded to Palin’s attack:

– Center for Community Change: When Sarah Palin demeaned community organizing, she didn’t attack another candidate. She attacked an American tradition — one that has helped everyday Americans engage with the political process and make a difference in their lives and the lives of their neighbors.

– Assn. of Community Organizations for Reform Now: ACORN members, leaders and staff are extremely disappointed that Republican leaders would make such condescending remarks on the great work community organizers accomplish in cities throughout this country. The fact that they marginalize our success in empowering low- and moderate-income people to improve their communities further illustrates their lack of touch with ordinary people.

More at ThinkProgress.org


Before this solemn mockery is o'er, all hell will break loose

One more speech and I can go back to monitoring the anti-gay industry.

McCain will talk tonight on what he can do if elected president.

But of course all of the attention is on last night and Sarah Palin's speech.

If you ask me, there are two more things to be brought up:

1. This "blame the media" mode will sooner or later backfire if the Republicans continue it. I have already seen some members of the media speak on it and they ain't exactly happy about it. The last thing McCain and his folks need are enemies in the press. And just how long will it be before the American public write them off as whiners?

2. To hell with claims of sexism. Palin obviously wants to stomp with the big dogs so let her stomp or get chewed up.

In other words (and this is me channeling myself when I was in high school watching a good old fashioned catfight) - beat that sista down!!!!

I almost can't wait to get back to showcasing the lies of the anti-gay industry. For one reason, One News Now has put their comments section back up. (I would link to it but as you know the powers that be on that site Rickrolled me).

Secondly (and this is something I don't think anyone has thought about with the convention and hurricanes) I think that our friend Peter LaBarbera may be a very unhappy camper. As I understand it, Southern Decadence was supposed to take place, thereby insuring that Peter would get more "research" of scandalously clad gay men in leather.

I think Hurricane Gustav put a kibosh on that.

But if I know Peter, he probably has something extra silly planned.

I await with interest. Really I do.

Associated Press - Palin stretched the truth in speech

Well the speech is over and to the surprise of no one, Sarah Palin did a good job.

But a few things caught my eye -

1. That attack on the media will backfire. As articles have shown, we don't know that much about her. Hell, McCain didn't know that much about her when he selected her. Trying to bully the media isn't going to play out well publicly. It just gives the impression that the campaign has something to hide.

2. All of that talk about attracting Hilary Clinton voters just went out of the window. Palin did nothing concilatory to appeal to those women. Her tone was mean and sarcastic. The delegates may have loved it but remember some of those same delegates loved Pat Buchanan's 1992 speech and we all know how that played out.

3. The crack about community organizers and the comment about Obama wanting to read terrorists their rights are going to backfire on her.

4. And the most important thing (by way of Americablog), Palin was highly deceptive about many things in her speech:

Ballsy move to lie to America during one's introductory speech. But, that's what Palin did tonight. AP said Palin "stretch[ed] the truth. She lied:

PALIN: "I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending ... and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress 'thanks but no thanks' for that Bridge to Nowhere."

THE FACTS: As mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million. In her two years as governor, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation. While Palin notes she rejected plans to build a $398 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport, that opposition came only after the plan was ridiculed nationally as a "bridge to nowhere."

The gloves are truly off here. When the hype and afterglow of Palin's speech is over, I am interested in seeing what is going to happen.


The Palin paradox and other things (because it's not all about her)

In the words of Addison DeWitt in All About Eve, tonight Sarah Palin will give the performance of her life.

No matter how the media tries to hype her speech up as a do or die situation, we all know how it's going to end. She is going to walk out to the podium under thunderous applause before her speech and will be hailed as a "gutsy underdog" when it's over.

Short of cutting a loud fart in front of the microphone, Palin will do just fine tonight, causing conservatives to heap her with more platitudes than Michael Jackson received when he started winning awards for the Thriller album.

But I find the line of defense that she is being attacked due to sexism highly funny. It would be more funny it if weren't insulting.

For months, we have all be inudated by claims, phony anecdotes, and out-and-out lies about Barack Obama.

And when folks pushing those claims got called to the carpet, they feigned shock saying "oh so it's wrong to even criticize Barack Obama. We are only just trying to find out the truth."

Now they take the opposite road with Sarah Palin. Give me a break.

When Palin has a book written on her by an attack artist like Jerome Corsi, then we will talk. Other than that, everyone is well within their rights to scrutinize her.

After all, John McCain certainly didn't.

But don't be fooled by this circling of wagons. According to this link, not all Republicans favor Palin.

And according to an MSNBC poll, people (by a large margin) think that the media should not back off investigating her background.

In other news . . .

I want to link you all to this very interesting story by a young black gay man. He recounts coming out to his family and introducing them to his partner.

In this fast paced world of bullshit, it's nice to spotlight brave folks like him.