Proposition 8

War Part 5: No Honor in the Prop 8 Racket

Capitol Resource Institute, Doug LaMalfa, Karen England, Placer County Republican Party, Proposition 8, Ted Gaines 1 Response »

Jul 112011

Have you started to wonder why with the state Billions in the hole, our state education ranked 49th, our credit rating last, our roads crumbling and a new bill just passed mandating 6 year olds be taught about homosexuality – why LaMalfa and Gaines have prioritized attacking Republican volunteers?

Why would a self-styled Conservative activist who travels the state and country to speak at and attend events attack a Prop 8 campaign?

We’ve already covered the possible reasons why Ted Gaines and Doug LaMalfa would join in on the current attacks.

Prop 8 was a brutal campaign, people got their houses vandalized, people got physically assaulted and businesses got boycotted.

People needed a way to participate without the specter of the open-minded tolerant liberals coming after them.

Enter www.lavendarliberal.com – this is a homosexual activist website designed to attack anyone who supported Prop 8. If you click on the block8 link – it takes you to a searchable database where you can look up anyone who has donated money to most pro-family campaigns across America. The site is replete with vicious comments about the donors as well.

Apparently, the ultimate goal of the Capitol Resource Institute is to eliminate competition in the Prop 8 arena. The pattern of financial motivations by Karen England is well established – and attacking the Placer GOP’s Prop 8 program in an attempt to expose the names of all who participated anonymously would certainly prevent such an effort from happening again.

And, as a side bonus, Karen England is able to “get” two of her political opponents in the process.

Karen England registered a domain in 2008 – www.yesonproposition8.com. This was a website that was put together by the Capitol Resource Institute to raise money. I was also told that the Capitol Resource Institute refused to participate with the real prop 8 campaign – www.protectmarriage.com and that they sent out numerous fundraising emails actually competing with the real prop 8 campaign!

Lavendar Liberal was kind enough to leave a blog post active with screenshots of the fake prop 8 website. It also proves a direct linkage to the Capitol Resource Institute in the creation and maintenance of the website.

I wonder if Ted Gaines and Doug LaMalfa knew about this? I wonder if the $34,500 would have still been forthcoming if they knew this had happened?

Your intrepid blogger cross-referenced campaign finance reports that show what happened with the money raised by the fake prop 8 website run by Karen England and the Capitol Resource Institute.

Please also note that most all of the money raised by the CRI was from small dollar donors – suggesting that hundreds of people were fooled by this website.

The link to the campaign finance report is here for your reference.

A close look reveals this:

They held back $20,000 which was sent to the Capitol Resource Institute itself after the election was over. This is odd as most campaigns finish in debt – this suggests to me some pre-meditation with regards to the plans for the money all along.

Of the remaining $104,732.36 raised – it was spent as follows:

Around $31,000 in expenses of Capitol Resource Family Impact – a related entity to the Capitol Resource Institute. From looking at the report – it appears that over 40% of the money raised benefited the Capitol Resource Institute directly or indirectly.

In addition – there are several payments to LaTanya Wright, who works for the Capitol Resource Institute. (Side note – Wright was intended to be a alternate from the Seal Beach Republican Assembly in the attempted CRA coup in 2011. Wright lives in Roseville)

Meredith Turney also shows up on the report – at that time, she was employed by the Capitol Resource Institute as well.

The Capitol Resource Institute’s Yes on Prop 8 campaign sent out several emails as well. A 36-page document is linked here with several of the emails that were sent out in competition with the real prop 8 campaign. The comments at the beginning of several of the emails are revealing:

“This is the Capitol Resource Institute trying to skim money off of Prop 8”

“This is very fishy – I almost donated money to this site…”

“It appears Karen England is at it again, read on”

I spoke with a few people off the record and they were adamant that the Capitol Resource Institute refused to be cohesive with any of the other interests behind Prop 8 – and openly competed with the real Prop 8 campaign.

That pattern of behavior continues today as Karen’s rampage against the Placer County Republican Party has targeted a legitimate grass-roots effort done in 2008 to get out the vote for Proposition 8.

Transparency is the buzzword used to attack. So why has it taken this blogger to shed light on the motives?

Next up – a trip down CRA memory lane to the 2007 CRA Convention where Karen England was involved in the purchase of a State CRA Endorsement for a Pro-Choice, Presidential Candidate who also introduced socialized medicine in to his home state as a governor.

War Part 4: Slandering Political Opponents and Prop 8

Capitol Resource Institute, Doug LaMalfa, Karen England, Placer County Republican Assembly, Placer County Republican Party, Proposition 8, Rick Keene, Ted Gaines Comments Off

Jul 102011

UPDATE: RightonDaily is getting some love from other bloggers in our quest for transparency! Click here – this blogger reminded me that Mark Spannagel, Doug LaMalfa’s current chief of staff was part of the operation currently getting assailed by Doug LaMalfa and Ted Gaines! (I had forgotten about that detail)

I had a close friend email me a video link from Fox news about David Brock. Brock is insane and he is a smear merchant who runs an outfit called media matters. If you watch the video – the parallels to the current situation are obvious.

In late 2009, with the number one donor to her employer the Capitol Resource Institute, (Doug LaMalfa) facing an opponent in Rick Keene who had over $1million in the bank – Karen England went on a rampage.

Her pattern of slander was not new – Conservatives like Jan Pinney and Brett Storey in local office had experienced it firsthand as had Congressman Doolittle.

Her chosen method to advance the candidacy of LaMalfa was to invoke behavior reminiscent of David Brock against anyone that stood between her and her employer’s number one donor getting in to office. (Remember the $27,500 highlighted in post one of this series)

Emails started coming out from local Tea Parties as they represented the only area where Karen England could get traction. People Tom, George and I had never met were regurgitating distortions on their facebook pages, sending emails and writing blogs – parroting talking points about the Placer County Republican Parties’ 2008 Prop 8 effort.

Why most of Karen England’s recruits never questioned what they were told is beyond me, and why they decided to participate in the attempted fraud at the 2011 CRA convention in the name of stopping people they had been convinced were corrupt is beyond me.

Of course, she destroyed the character of Rick Keene in the mind of everyone she could. It’s legal, right? All’s fair in campaign speech, right? A great return on that $27,500 if you ask me.

Late 2009 is when the calls from local media started coming – the timing of those with the beginning of the onslaught of slander, and the financial interests are too much of a coincidence to ignore.

The basis of the charges of embezzlement, fraud, extortion, graft, money laundering and the like had their genesis from the 2008 Prop 8 campaign.

Karen England, who holds herself out as an unassailable conservative, did not support Tom McClintock in the primary in 2008. I was told as such by members of McClintock’s team when I asked them where she was. Unbelievably – I was told the reason was mine and George’s support of McClintock.

I have come to believe that real reason why is that David Reade, a member of the Capitol Resource Institute’s board of directors was the Chief of Staff for Doug LaMalfa (LaMalfa endorsed Doug Ose and not Tom McClintock). It is my belief that between that and the large amount of money LaMalfa had contributed to the Capitol Resource Institute were the nexus for Karen staying on the sidelines. (I found an archived webpage from the Capitol Resource Institute that shows the connection of Reade to the Capitol Resource Institute – the page was removed during the 2010 primary after I had written a blog about the connection at that time.)

The tie in between McClintock and the Placer GOP’s Prop 8 campaign was simple. There was a belief that turning out Prop 8 voters in what was a horrible year for Republicans would help Tom McClintock. (who only won by 1700 votes in 2008.)

Karen England’s Daughter Jordan (who was an adult at the time) was paid out of the Placer County Republican Party’s Prop 8 Get-out-the-vote operation. I found this out courtesy of Ken Campbell (who is also on the Capitol Resource Institute’s Board of Directors) writing a couple of times on blogs that he was shown a copy of a check written out to Jordan England. (She was allegedly paid by some sub-vendor of a sub-contractor of some sort of the Placer GOP’s Main Contractor… or so it has been told, Ken is pretty hard to follow some times.)

In the Meantime – Tom McClintock emptied out an old Board of Equalization account and the Capitol Resource Institute was a beneficiary. $6000 worth.

The donation occurred on 9/28/2008 – around that time, Karen magically began showing up at the Placer GOP / McClintock HQ to run phone banks. Again, like Ted Gaines and Doug LaMalfa – McClintock did nothing wrong by giving the Capitol Resource Institute the money. This is about Karen’s failure to disclose the financial interest in a donor to her employer – and in this case the timing of the donation relative to her activities.

In the months since that campaign – through anecdotal evidence, I was able to determine that the check written to Jordan England was being shown to people and was likely being used as evidence of “corruption” at local Tea Party meetings.

So the mantra of this “Conservative” attacking the Placer GOP’s 2008 Prop 8 effort was born in late 2009. To Be Continued…

Prop 8 Proponents Move to Toss Exceptionally Biased Ruling

Proposition 8 Comments Off

Apr 262011

I couldn’t care less that Vaughn Walker is gay, what I do care about are the extreme statements – especially those against the Church in his ruling. I do believe that Judge Walker’s rage against the Church is indicative of the culture war pitting Homosexuals against any traditions of society.

I received a press release yesterday – it is simple. Judge Walker should have recused himself before ruling on Prop 8. It’s called a conflict of interest – especially so for Judge Walker who has been in a relationship for years with his domestic partner.

Date: April 25, 2011

Contact: Carla Hass 916-834-9969

Prop 8 Proponents Move to Throw Out Same-Sex Marriage Ruling –

Cite Judge’s Long-Term Gay Relationship, Failure to Disclose.

SACRAMENTO – Attorneys for ProtectMarriage.com filed a motion today asking the U.S. District Court to vacate former Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision invalidating Prop 8, on the grounds that Walker failed to disclose a long-term, same-sex relationship, and should have recused himself before trial.

Federal law requires a judge to disqualify himself whenever the judge knows that he has any personal interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the case, or any other circumstances in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

“The American people have a right to a fair judicial process, free from even the appearance of bias or prejudice,” said Andrew Pugno, general counsel for the official proponents of Prop 8. “Judge Walker’s ten-year-long same-sex relationship creates the unavoidable impression that he was not the impartial judge the law requires. He was obligated to either recuse himself or provide full disclosure of this relationship at the outset of the case. These circumstances demand setting aside his decision.”

The core issue presented in the Perry v. Brown case is whether the U.S. Constitution requires the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex relationships.

“Under governing California law Judge Walker currently cannot marry his partner. But his ruling in this case, if ultimately upheld, would give him a right to do so,” Pugno pointed out.

“We deeply regret the necessity of this motion. But if the courts are to require others to follow the law, the courts themselves must do so as well,” Pugno added.

“We are not suggesting that a gay or lesbian judge could not sit on this case,” Pugno said. “Rather, our motion is all about the fundamental principle that no judge is permitted to try a case where he has an interest in the outcome. Surely, no one would suggest that Judge Walker could order state officials to issue a marriage license to him and his partner. Yet it must be presumed that that is precisely what has occurred.”

Proposition 8 was approved by over 7 million California voters in the 2008 general election, to reaffirm marriage in the California Constitution as only between a man and a woman.

Judge Deciding Prop 8 Case is Gay

Andy Pugno, Gay Marriage, Proposition 8, Yes on 8 Comments Off

Feb 072010

I don’t know if this is a case of the SF Chron outing the guy or if it is a case of re-stating one of those things below the surface that has been there for years.

Everyone I know describes Vaughn Walker as a Country Club Republican and the behavior of Walker during the trial indicates that the fix is in.

Quoting the article – in particular, the end with Andy Pugno’s comments:

If the judge decides that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional, supporters of the measure are sure to take it to the federal appeals court and the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary. Kendell expects that if that happens, the measure’s proponents will make an issue of the judge’s sexual orientation – at least in the public arena.

Not so, said Andy Pugno, general counsel for the group that sponsored the Prop. 8 campaign.

“We are not going to say anything about that,” Pugno said.

He was quick to assert, however, that Prop. 8 backers haven’t gotten a fair shake from Walker in court. He cited both the judge’s order for the campaign to turn over thousands of pages of internal memos to the other side and Walker’s decision to allow the trial to be broadcast – both of which were overturned by higher courts.

“In many ways, the sponsors of Prop. 8 have been put at significant disadvantage throughout the case,” Pugno said. “Regardless of the reason for it.”

Prediction – Prop 8 is going to the US Supreme Court.

Prop 8 Trial Concludes – Media Bias Shines / No on 8 Arguments Emotional not Legal

Gay Marriage, No on 8, Proposition 8, Yes on 8 1 Response »

Jan 282010

Nowhere in the MSM did you see coverage of homosexual activists saying in court, “if we can’t marry, then no one should.”

Nowhere in the MSM did you see coverage of the No on 8 lawyers calling voting Yes On 8 a hate crime.

Nowhere in the MSM did you see coverage of how the judge refused to issue a reciprocating order compelling No on 8 to turn over their campaign documents the way Yes on 8 had to.

Nowhere in the MSM did you see anything close to a recitation of the legal facts – the most absurd of which is the claims that Homosexuals are a powerless minority. Hmmm, Harvey Milk Day? Our Assembly Speaker?

Again – the Prop 8 trial shows us why the American Media Establishment is a direct threat to our Republic and should be treated as propaganda and regulated under campaign finance law.

Quoting Andy Pugno: “But no matter how loud the pleas for sympathy become, there is simply no legal basis for the fantastical, unsupportable claim that the homosexual community in California is “politically powerless.” Does Equality California, California’s biggest gay lobby organization, think of itself as powerless? Does the Human Rights Campaign, which featured President Obama at their latest dinner, believe they are politically powerless? Are we to believe that these groups are politically powerless despite their ability to raise $43 million to oppose Prop 8, and to attract the support of the entire political establishment, Hollywood and the media? Not with a straight face we can’t.”

The bottom line – only Marriages produce Children. The fact that the voters had to be called on to remind the California Supreme Court of that fact is insane. The fact that the homosexual lobby has run to a liberal judge to usurp the will of 7 million voters and the above comments prove their agenda in their mind justifies tyranny, persecution and whatever other means in order to be advanced.

The Bottom line? – quoting Andy Pugno Again: “What may be lost in all the sensationalism of the past two and a half weeks of trial is that the burden of proof to invalidate Prop 8 lies squarely with the plaintiffs. They cannot win unless they prove that the voters were “irrational” when they chose to preserve the traditional definition of marriage in our state. Contrary to their public relations claims, the outcome of this case does not depend on whether the Prop 8 sponsors can prove that homosexual marriage will harm traditional marriage. The controlling legal issue is not whether homosexual marriage is good or bad, but rather whether the people have the right to decide what is best. The plaintiffs simply did not carry that burden.

Meanwhile, we have shown that limiting marriage to its longstanding definition is rational because marriage benefits children, not just the adults. Whenever possible, it is best for a child to have both a mother and a father. And man-woman marriage is the only human relationship that can biologically serve that distinctive purpose. A same-sex relationship can never offer a child both a mother and father. It’s that simple.

The plaintiffs put on a spectacular show-trial of irrelevant evidence, calling to the stand many “expert” witnesses to testify that allowing homosexual marriage would: help local governments raise more tax revenues, help gay and lesbian couples to accumulate greater wealth, and improve the self-esteem of homosexuals. But those are political arguments for society to consider, not legal support for the claim that the US Constitution contains the right to homosexual marriage. The courtroom is simply not the proper forum for what is clearly a social, not a legal, appeal.”

I predict that Judge Walker will legislate from his bench and cite the emotional arguments of the No on 8 side in his decision.

It wouldn’t surprise me to see my name on a list of bigots somewhere soon – remember, it’s all about tolerance, right? (forget what the voters think)

Older Entries