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)

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?

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 on Prop 8 Proponents Move to Toss Exceptionally Biased Ruling
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 on Judge Deciding Prop 8 Case is Gay
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.

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)

Jan 202010

Well – Judge Walker wormed around the 9th Circuit decision against forcing the release of internal campaign documents and guess what?

The Catholic and Mormon Church’s role was put on the stand. Worse – Religion was put on the stand.

Read this incredibly biased AP article about the trial and notice how they downplay the fact that the Speaker of the California Assembly is gay in an effort to lend their news organization as an assistant to the plantiffs. (no on 8 )

The concept that Gays are an oppressed minority is absurd. The article’s title – Professor says Gays are Politically Unpopular – basically says we need to overturn prop 8 with a court because 34 of 35 gay marriage initiatives have failed at the ballot box.

Thanks to Judge Walker – the No on 8 crowd will have a much easier time winning as they will know the strategy used by Yes on 8.

Most troubling is this excerpt from Andy Pugno summarizing today’s installment of absurdity:

Today, the legal challenge to Prop. 8 took an ugly turn as religion itself was put on trial. Plaintiffs’ witness Gary Segura, a Stanford University political science professor with expertise in the area of the political power of minorities including homosexuals, summed it up when he said “religion is the chief obstacle for gays’ and lesbians’ political progress.”

In trying to make the case that homosexuals are a vulnerable minority with no ability to achieve and secure success in the political system for their interests, Professor Segura blamed hostility, political opposition and even violence towards gays and lesbians on the teachings of major religious denominations. He further testified that there is no more powerful organization in the United States – save the government – than the church. Particular scrutiny was given to the official religious doctrines of the Catholic Church and Southern Baptists about marriage, family and sexual relationships. Therefore, according to his logic, gays and lesbians must be given special legal protection by the U.S. Constitution against religion itself.

So – Prop 8 hurts people’s feelings, overturn the will of the people… when that doesn’t work – smear the Church.

At least the professor is honest about it. (Unlike the AP)