Homosexual Advocates: Blatant False Accusation towards NOM

-
English: Chief Judge of the United States Dist...
English: Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Vaughn R. Walker, in 2008 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Megan Tooker, Chief Executive and General Counsel for the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board — the very person charged with conducting a fair and impartial investigation into the complaint — worked for Supreme Court Justice Michael Streit, one of the judges we helped remove from office during the 2010 judicial retention campaign! Talk about an apparent conflict of interest. It's no wonder that Ms. Tooker has in effect already publicly "convicted" NOM in absentia through the press. Instead of giving the good people of Iowa ethical and impartial service, Ms. Tooker has revealed her deep bias and animosity by declaring, without seeing any evidence in the case, that NOM is "absolutely false" and "absolutely wrong" in its position. Worse, she has blatantly lied to the public and media by misrepresenting our views on what must be disclosed under Iowa campaign finance laws. Her impertinent behavior is an attempt to poison the well of public opinion against NOM before anyone reviews the actual evidence.

We are not going to accept such outrageous and unprofessional behavior. Yesterday we demanded that Ms. Tooker be removed from any involvement with NOM's case. The people of Iowa are entitled to the highest standards of ethical conduct and independence from the state's top ethics officer, not conflicts of interest and misleading comments.

Sadly, we've seen this type of thing before. Ms. Tooker's behavior is frighteningly reminiscent to Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco, who outrageously declared Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional, thus invalidating the votes of over 7 million Californians. Walker refused to disclose that he is homosexual and engaged in a long-term gay relationship despite rules that require federal judges to make such disclosure if a reasonable person would believe him to have a conflict of interest. Just as Walker could never be expected to rule fairly on homosexual marriage, how can Megan Tooker be counted on to fairly handle a complaint that involves a campaign that helped remove her former boss from office?

Whether or not our demand of the Ethics Board that Ms. Tooker be removed from being involved in the complaint against NOM is granted or denied, we still have to defend ourselves from the blatantly false accusations that have been leveled by the homosexual activist who filed the complaint. This defense will cost money, time, and manpower, and distracts us

Related articles

Enhanced by Zemanta

Popular posts from this blog

Ontario Catholic school board to vote on flying gay ‘pride flag’ at all board-run schools

-
Image
A Catholic school board in Ontario will vote next week on a motion to fly the rainbow-colored homosexual pride flag at all board-run schools during the month of June. Halton Catholic District School Board (HCDSB) Trustee Brenda Agnew gave notice of her motion titled “supporting our diverse school community” during an April 6 board meeting. Quoting Pope Francis along with LGBT talking points about “equity and inclusion,” the motion calls for the Board’s Director of Education Pat Daly to “direct all HCDSB schools including the Catholic Education Centre to fly the Pride flag during the month of June starting with 2021.” The motion is expected to be voted on by the Board at their next meeting on April 20. With nine trustees, the motion requires five votes to pass. A tied vote results in a fail. The HCDSB states on its website that its mission is to provide “excellence in Catholic education by developing Christ-centred individuals enabled to transform society.” The Catholic Church, basing i...
Read more

Christian baker must make ‘wedding’ bakes for gay couples, court rules

-
Image
DENVER, CO ,  – A Colorado board has ruled that a Christian business owner must make wedding cakes for homosexual "marriages" despite his religious objections. Business owner Jack Phillips came under legal fire in 2012, when he refused to bake a cake for Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig , who had traveled to Massachusetts for a marriage license, and wanted to celebrate in their home state. They sued on the basis of a state law that prevents the application of religious beliefs if one owns a business. The Commission's ruling, which was issued verbally on Friday, orders Phillips to report every three months for the next two years on anti-discrimination training for his staff, and any customers who are refused service at his establishment. "I can believe anything I want, but if I'm going to do business here, I'd ought to not discriminate against people," said one of the Civil Rights Commission 's seven members in a public statement. Phil...
Read more

Australia: Gay Hate tribunals are coming

-
Image
Are Hate Tribunals Are Coming In Canada , it is considered discriminatory to say that marriage is between a man and a woman or that every child should know and be raised by his or her biological married parents.  It is not just politically incorrect in Canada to say so; you can be saddled with tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, fined, and forced to take sensitivity training. Anyone who is offended by something you have said or written can make a complaint to the Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals. In Canada, these organizations police speech, penalizing citizens for any expression deemed in opposition to particular sexual behaviors or protected groups identified under “sexual orientation.” It takes only one complaint against a person to be brought before the tribunal, costing the defendant tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. The commissions have the power to enter private residences and remove all items pertinent to their investigations, checkin...
Read more