Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

NEWS -- 2009.09.01.Tuesday

Expand Messages
  • James Martin
    1) Robin Williams - Viagra 2) Thousands call for Turing apology 3) One of South Carolina s Board of Education members, a most respected social conservative,
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 1, 2009
      1) Robin Williams - Viagra
      2) Thousands call for Turing apology
      3) One of South Carolina's Board of Education members, a most respected social conservative, writes Internet porn
      4) Frankly, dear Democrats, we just might not give a damn
      5) The Gang of Six
      6) Supporters of gay partnerships sue over referendum (Washington state)
      7) Gay partnership referendum makes ballot (Washington state)
      8) Pastor Redoubles Efforts vs. Same-Sex Marriage (Washington, D.C.)
      9) DOMA Do-Over -- The Justice Department gets it right this time.
      10) Former Miss California sues over firing
      11) Mary Cheney gave $1,000 to anti-gay Senate hopeful

      Gmail question --
      All y'all using Gmail -- When you send a post to a yahoogroup that you are a member of, do you received your post back from the yahoo group?

      Robin Williams - Viagra


      Published: 2009/08/31 07:17:30 GMT

      Thousands call for Turing apology
      Thousands of people have signed a Downing Street petition calling for a posthumous government apology to World War II code breaker Alan Turing.

      Writer Ian McEwan has just backed the campaign, which already has the support of scientist Richard Dawkins.

      In 1952 Turing was prosecuted for gross indecency after admitting a sexual relationship with a man. Two years later he killed himself.

      The petition was the idea of computer scientist John Graham-Cumming.

      He is seeking an apology for the way the mathematician was treated after his conviction. He has also written to the Queen to ask for Turing to be awarded a posthumous knighthood.

      Alan Turing was given experimental chemical castration as a "treatment" and his security privileges were removed, meaning he could not continue work for the UK Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ).

      "This added insult and humiliation ultimately drove him to suicide," said gay-rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, who also backs the campaign. "With Turing's death, Britain and the world lost one of its finest intellectual minds. A government apology and posthumous pardon are long overdue."

      National legacy

      Alan Turing is most famous for his code-breaking work at Bletchley Park during WWII, helping to create the Bombe that cracked messages enciphered with the German Enigma machines.

      However, he also made significant contributions to the emerging fields of artificial intelligence and computing.

      In 1936 he established the conceptual and philosophical basis for the rise of computers in a seminal paper called On Computable Numbers, while in 1950 he devised a test to measure the intelligence of a machine. Today it is known as the Turing Test.

      After the war he worked at many institutions including the University of Manchester, where he worked on the Manchester Mark 1, one of the first recognisable modern computers.

      There is a memorial statue of him in Manchester's Sackville Gardens which was unveiled in 2001.

      "I kept reading about potential funding cuts at Bletchley Park and I suddenly felt really mad about it," said Mr Graham-Cumming.

      "I felt Turing was getting overlooked as being a British genius and that there was a blind spot in the public eye about an important man."

      He has so far collected more than 5,500 signatures.

      He admits that an official apology to Alan Turing is "unlikely", as Mr Turing has no known surviving family, but he says that the real aim of the petition is symbolic.

      "The most important thing to me is that people hear about Alan Turing and realise his incredible impact on the modern world, and how terrible the impact of prejudice was on him," he said.

      Story from BBC NEWS:


      Sizzling: Mark Sanford's Evengelical GOP Fundy Chairwoman of State Board of Ed is allegedly an Internet Pornographer. She is an executive committeewoman of the S.C. Republican Party, as well as the woman responsible for drafting the party's education platform. Maybe some of the porn takes place in Argentina.


      Sex Education?
      By fitsnews . on August 31, 2009

      S.C. Gov. Mark Sanford may be an amateur Romeo, but it looks like he's got nothing on his appointment to the S.C. State Board of Education.

      Kristin Maguire, an Upstate evangelical and one of South Carolina's most respected social conservatives, has been one of the governor's closest education policy advisors for years. She's also Sanford's appointment to the S.C. Board of Education, which last year elected her its Chairwoman.

      What else is she?

      The prolific author of hardcore erotic fiction on the Internet, according to documents provided to the governor's office earlier this summer and later obtained by FITS.

      Maguire, a professed Christian who home-schools her four children, declined to comment for our story but did not deny that she had previously frequented websites that feature such X-rated material. Maguire believes that a former friend is leaking the information to the media in an effort to ruin her political career.

      As for the specific writings alleged to have flowed from Maguire's pen, most have been deleted from the Internet.

      FITS was able to use conversations in various Internet chat rooms, however, to link at least two "erotic stories" to Maguire's alleged pen name, "Bridget Keeney." From there, numerous similarities between "Bridget" and Maguire emerged, including commonalities in age, geographic location, engineering background, hobbies (knitting, for example) and number of children. One comment left in an erotic chat room by "Bridget" even reveals the name of a professor who was at Clemson University's College of Engineering at the time when Maguire was a student there, while another comment references a specific medical procedure that Maguire underwent several years ago.

      Confronted with these numerous identifying markers, Maguire spoke to FITS of difficult times in her life and acknowledged that she had visited certain websites where such material was posted and reviewed. She did not admit to authoring erotic fiction, however.

      A source familiar with Sanford's response to receiving this information tells a different story, however. This source says that Maguire emphatically denied that the writing samples were hers, and that she and the governor's chief of staff, Scott English, immediately set about to ensure that none of the material remained on the Internet.

      None of the writings attributed to Maguire are illegal, obviously, and none of them coincide with her tenure as Chairwoman of the State Board. But they do coincide with her extensive interaction with the Governor's Office during Sanford's first term.

      That part of Maguire's life is now facing intense scrutiny - especially in light of the way Sanford's office appears to have helped put a lid on the information being leaked about Maguire.

      For example, several sources have related to FITS an incident involving Maguire and Scott English at a Columbia area bar at the end of the 2004 legislative session.

      "She was giving him a lap dance," says a witness at the bar. "There's no other way to describe it."

      Another former Sanford staffer tells FITS that Maguire once unbuttoned her blouse and hiked up her skirt in front of him to show off her see-thru, light blue underwear. This incident allegedly occurred not at a bar, but inside the governor's office - at the unoccupied desk of First Lady Jenny Sanford, no less.

      "Lies, lies, lies, lies," a friend of Maguire's told FITS. "These are all lies. That is not Kristin and shame on any person who says that it is."

      Maguire's involvement in S.C. politics goes well beyond her leadership of the S.C. Board of Education or her involvement with the Sanford administration. She is an executive committeewoman of the S.C. Republican Party, as well as the woman responsible for drafting the party's education platform.

      Prior to being elected Chairwoman, Maguire led the panel responsible for approving education standards taught in South Carolina classrooms, including what textbooks were to be used and how teachers were to be certified. She has been a strong supporter of "abstinence only" sex education, as well.

      When Maguire was elected to lead the S.C. Board, her appointment was hailed as a victory for social conservatives and feted on Christian blogs and websites across the Southeast.

      Maguire's alleged alter-ego would obviously be quite a contrast from her carefully-cultivated public persona.

      "I fantasize about being the 'second' F (female) in a MFF (threesome) where the other two are in a committed relationship," the sultry "Bridget" writes on one post. "I would like to focus on pleasuring her and 'enhancing' their intercourse ."

      So, did Sanford's office help Maguire engage in a cover-up of this highly-sensitive information? Or, as English told FITS, was the Governor's Office simply reeling from the distraction caused by the governor's own sex scandal? Who knows, but shortly after Sanford's office was informed of the alleged connection between Maguire and "Bridget," her writings began disappearing from the web.


      (Editor's Note: These are samples of the erotic fiction written by "Bridget Keeney," who is alleged to be S.C. Board of Education Chairwoman Kristin Maguire. Please note that these documents contain EXCEEDINGLY GRAPHIC DESCRIPTIONS OF SEXUAL ACTS and as such are NSFW - or NOT SAFE FOR WORK).

      "Continental Cuisine"

      "Lauren's Masturbatory Musings"


      Frankly, dear Democrats, we just might not give a damn
      Submitted by pmcarpenter on Tue, 09/01/2009 - 5:26am.
      P.M. Carpenter THE FIFTH COLUMNIST
      I read this --"Experts see double-digit Dem losses" -- yesterday evening, and this morning I'm still scratching my head, asking, Would its realization make any difference of real consequence? Just as disconcerting is the compulsion to even ask the question; that, in itself, is a realization of worst fears.

      On to the specifics, which begin with that "small"-- but expanding -- "universe of political analysts," writes the Politico, "who closely follow House races" and already envision something of a bloodbath in that chamber in 2010.

      Casualties, forecast as "moderate to heavy," might even approach the unthinkable of just a few short months ago: a near-majority triumph for the GOP, an idealess lump of disarrayed stragglers which only the Democratic Party, in all its own competitive disarray, could possibly re-elevate.

      Charlie Cook, keeper of the respected Cook Political Report, was one of the first handicappers to get the speculation rolling and tongues wagging, having written, in an urgent "update" less than two weeks ago, a rather jarring opening: "the situation this summer has slipped completely out of control for President Obama and congressional Democrats."

      Charlie is not given to idle hyperbole, so heads went up when his assessment of an "eerie sense of déjà vu" came down: The odds of those moderate to heavy losses, he wrote -- more than 20 seats, that is, and neurotically reminiscent of Bill Clinton's first midterm elections -- are now equal to the odds of light ones.

      And, at about the same time, Nate Silver, of the also respected 538.com, was telling conventioneering Netrooters that Republicans have somewhere "between a 25 and 33 percent chance of winning back control of the House."

      "A lot of Democratic freshmen and sophomores," acknowledged Silver in a follow-up with the Politico, "will be running in a much tougher environment than in 2006 and 2008," largely because 2010's environment will lack the Democratic-vote-getting presence of George W. Bush.

      Plus, there's that complacency thing. "We have volunteers who worked really hard in 2006 and in 2008 for Obama," continued Silver, "but it's less compelling [for them] to preserve the majority."

      Yet -- and here's the real kicker, suggested in this column's first paragraph -- what many of the party faithful are surely wondering is, A majority for what?

      Democrats in the last two cycles ran genuine national campaigns of "Throw the bums out, so that we, collectively, can advance real change," which is what Republicans also said in 1994. The difference was, Republicans meant it, and their leadership was never shy about enforcing it. The Democratic leadership's attitude? Every member a King.

      Yes, yes, I know, there's a world of organizational and temperamental difference between Dems and the GOP, starting with the latter's more effortless ideological unity, which considerably eases the leadership's burden. But have you seen, or, rather, can you even imagine the current House leadership snapping Blue Dog bones over a health-care vote in the exquisitely brutal manner in which Tom DeLay did over the Medicare drug vote?

      What's more, the 2006 and '08 national elections were, in message and spirit, more top-down than bottom-up. That is, it was less a matter of voters telling the Democratic Party that they wish to appoint it their agent of change than the Democratic Party -- collectively -- promising voters to be that agent.

      Never did one hear, throughout those buoyant campaign seasons, the party's leadership or the DNC or the DCCC or the DSCC say, Vote for us and we'll deliver change all right, except of course whenever enough Blue Dogs or New Democrats or whatever ensemble of purely self-interested jackasses says we can't.

      No, national campaigns are in the minds of voters akin to parliamentary elections in which the electorate votes not for a candidate, but for an advertised concept. And in 2007 and 2009, the advertisers pulled a bait and switch -- which, in turn, has the unhappy effect of really pissing off consumers (and generating headlines like, "Experts see double-digit Dem losses").

      Still, I concede that in this column I'm committing a common error of liberal scribes: I'm calling for what should be -- party unity -- rather than acknowledging and somehow coping with the immutable, immovable forces that are -- district-by-district pockets of self-preservationist intransigence; the selling out of the national good for personal political survival. Saideth Walter, That's the way it is.

      Having conceded that, let me add, however, one corrective to the above: Blue Dogs et al at least think they're engaging in self-preservationism. Yet I'm hardly alone in characterizing that behavior as a hefty gamble; which is to say, it may be that when it comes to, say, health-care reform, they're profoundly misreading their constituencies; that the homefolks are indeed more eager for real reform -- you know, sort of like they said during the recent election -- than their representatives know.

      Which is further to say, if they do suffer moderate to heavy losses in 2010, it might in fact be the result of anxious timidity. Sometimes, even in an organically conservative nation like ours, a little boldness pays off.

      So we leave off where we began. If the Democratic House fails to strike and hold a bold note on health-care reform and then heads into the rapacious maw of double-digit losses, would the revised Congressional balance sheet make any difference of any real consequence? In short, would we give a damn?


      Please respond to P.M.'s commentary by leaving comments below and sharing them with the BuzzFlash community. For personal questions or comments you can contact him at fifthcolumnistmail@...

      THE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter


      Lots of comments at the URL.




      The Gang of Six (born July 17, 2009) is a bipartisan group of centrist and conservative Senators urging delay in consideration of health care reform, thereby ensuring that the Obama health care plan will not be passed, not before the end of the 2009 Congressional session, not ever. Comprised of six members who are all dicks in their own right, the Gang of Six is an excellent example of Gestalt dickery, in which the whole is greater than the sum of its dicks.
      The Gang of Six halted progress on a potentially historic piece of legislation by mailing a letter of concern to Democratic and Republican leaders. This is the pussiest form of political protest since Sinead O'Connor ripped up that photo of the Pope on "Saturday Night Live" after singing an a cappella version of Bob Marley's "War." Remember that? WTF, right?

      By the way, despite having a name that sounds like a super-villain organization--form of "Filibuster!"-- the Gang of Six is also the pussiest gang since Fred, Daphne, Velma, Shaggy, and Scooby. They may as well all be wearing neckerchiefs.

      Wimp-ass or not, initiation into the Gang of Six still involves killing people, just slowly, while they wither away in the waiting room at an understaffed free clinic.

      The Gang of Six is totally cock-blocking Barack Obama, right when he needs to get laid the most. Legislationally-speaking, of course. You'd imagine the Obamas still hold regular press conferences in the Rose Garden, if you know what we mean. They do it. Have sex. Jeez, do you really need to have it spelled out for you like that?

      Read the whole story: Dickipedia


      Seattle Times
      Thursday, August 27, 2009
      Supporters of gay partnerships sue over referendum

      Associated Press Writer

      Supporters of the state's expanded domestic partnership law sued elections officials Thursday, hoping to keep a referendum of the law off the November ballot.

      The political group Washington Families Standing Together sued Secretary of State Sam Reed in King County Superior Court, alleging that Reed has accepted thousands of signatures that were not in compliance with state law.

      "Referendum 71 should only be on the ballot if it has qualified based on legally valid signatures," the group's chairwoman, Anne Levinson, said in a written statement.

      The request for the temporary injunction claims that, out of more than 137,000 petition signatures submitted by initiative sponsors, Reed accepted "thousands of signatures on petitions where the required declarations were either left blank, not signed by the person who circulated the petitions or not signed by the declarant."

      The suit also claims that some accepted signatures belong to people who were not registered voters when they signed the petitions.

      "Because of the limited number of signatures turned in, failure to enforce these laws could well lead to a measure being qualified for the ballot that should not be, and that measure has the potential to strip away important protections from thousands of families all across the state," Levinson said.

      The case was assigned to King County Superior Court Judge Julie Spector, with hearings expected early next week.

      The referendum's sponsor, a group called Protect Marriage Washington, wants a public vote on the expanded partnerships, in hopes of overturning broader domestic partnerships for gay couples.

      Partnership opponents submitted their petition signatures last month. The campaign needs 120,577 valid signatures to make the fall ballot, and so far, more than 103,000 signatures have been accepted. Reed's staff says the signature-checking process should be completed by Tuesday.

      "The focus of our office continues to be on completing this signature check in a fair and accurate manner, and to facilitate our state's important initiative and referendum process as well as we can," said Nick Handy, the state elections director.

      The lawsuit comes just hours after the state Public Disclosure Commission ruled that Protect Marriage Washington can't keep its political donors' names secret.

      Stephen Pidgeon, an attorney for the group, told members of the campaign finance regulatory commission that supporters of the campaign to qualify Referendum 71 have received harassing phone calls and e-mails, and death threats.

      "What is taking place in the state of Washington is voter intimidation and voter oppression and First Amendment rights suppression," he said.

      Pidgeon asked that the group be required only to make public the campaign donors' initials, home city and state. The group would then file a second document with the PDC with the full names for the state to keep under seal.

      But regulators unanimously rejected the request, saying the group didn't show it would suffer an unreasonable hardship if the names were made public under state campaign finance laws.

      "It seems to me that granting this would mean that in any case where what's before the public is an emotional issue, there would be no public disclosure," said commission member Ken Schellberg.

      Pidgeon said he wasn't surprised by the ruling, and said Protect Marriage Washington was still weighing the next step, which could include an appeal of the decision in federal court.

      The group initially turned in financial disclosure forms earlier this month with just initials, but has since amended their filing with the donors' full names.

      Protect Marriage Washington has raised more than $35,000 in expectation of a campaign, should the measure make the ballot. Washington Families Standing Together has raised nearly $89,000.

      Referendum 71 sponsors are fighting on several fronts to shield the names of people who support overturning the domestic partnership law.

      Protect Marriage Washington also is trying to prevent the release of the names of people who signed the petitions to get the referendum on the ballot. A political group called WhoSigned.Org has said it will publish online those names.

      The petition-listing effort is not supported by the official campaign that has tried to keep R-71 off the ballot. A federal judge has granted a temporary restraining order to bar the release of signatures on R-71 petitions, and a hearing on that case will be held in Tacoma next Thursday.

      The new law was scheduled to take effect July 26, but it has been delayed until officials can verify whether there are enough valid signatures to put R-71 on the November ballot. If there are enough signatures, the law will be delayed until the outcome of the Nov. 3 election.

      The new domestic partnership law expands on Washington's existing domestic partnerships for gay couples, which were established in 2007. The newest version adds registered domestic partners to all remaining areas of state law that presently apply only to married couples. Those statutes range from adoption and child support rights and obligations, to pensions and other public employee benefits.

      As of this week, more than 5,800 domestic partnership registrations had been filed in Washington since the first law took effect in July 2007.


      On the Net:

      Legislature: http://www.leg.wa.gov

      Washington Families Standing Together: http://www.wafst.org

      Protect Marriage Washington: http://www.protectmarriagewa.com

      Domestic partnership information: http://www.secstate.wa.gov/corps/domesticpartnerships


      San Francisco Chronicle
      Gay partnership referendum makes ballot
      By RACHEL LA CORTE, Associated Press Writer

      Monday, August 31, 2009

      Olympia, Wash. (AP) --

      A referendum on an expansion of Washington's domestic partnership law for gay couples has qualified for the November ballot, election officials said Monday.

      The "everything but marriage" measure broadens recognition of domestic partnerships by granting gay and lesbian couples all the remaining state-provided benefits presently extended only to married heterosexual couples.

      After a month of counting petition signatures, the secretary of state's office said that Referendum 71 had 121,486 valid signatures - nearly a thousand more than needed to advance to the general election.

      But supporters of the expansion of the law asked a King County Superior Court judge on Monday to at least temporarily block the referendum from the ballot, arguing that election officials have accepted thousands of invalid petition signatures.

      The new law was supposed to take effect on July 26. But the referendum campaign put it on hold, and the law can now only take effect if approved by state voters Nov. 3.

      It would expand the domestic partnership law passed in 2007 that granted gay couples hospital visitation rights, the ability to authorize autopsies and organ donations, and inheritance rights when there is no will.

      Lawmakers expanded that law again in 2008 to give gay domestic partners standing under laws covering probate and trusts, community property and guardianship.

      The new benefits under the current measure for gay couples range from adoption and child support rights to public employment benefits - although any benefits that cost the state money, such as pensions, are delayed until 2014 because of the state's recession-fueled budget problems.

      If the referendum leads to a rejection of the law's expansion, legislation approved in 2007 and 2008 would be retained, but it would roll back the additional rights granted in the "everything but marriage" bill.

      As of this week, more than 5,800 domestic partnership registrations had been filed in Washington since the first law took effect in July 2007.


      On the Net:

      Washington state Legislature: www.leg.wa.gov

      Protect Marriage Washington: www.protectmarriagewa.com/

      Faith and Freedom Network: http://faithandfreedom.us

      Domestic partnership information: www.secstate.wa.gov/corps/domesticpartnerships



      That makes a battle on both the northeast corner and the northwest corner -- one in Maine and one in Washington.


      Here's another bigot proposal --

      Washington Post
      Washington, D.C.

      [ picture of this Black bigot at the URL ]

      Pastor Redoubles Efforts vs. Same-Sex Marriage

      By Tim Craig
      Washington Post Staff Writer
      Tuesday, September 1, 2009

      Bishop Harry Jackson is refusing to relent in his campaign to stop same-sex marriage in the District, despite the drubbing he took before the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics this summer.

      Jackson sent out a statement Monday stating that he and other opponents of same-sex marriage would file an initiative request with the elections board Tuesday.

      If approved by the board, the initiative would give District residents an opportunity to vote sometime next year on whether to legalize same-sex marriage in the District. Jackson, who says he believes that most city voters oppose same-sex marriage, is hoping his proposal will slow efforts by the D.C. Council to legalize those marriages.

      Sometime this fall, council member David A. Catania (I-At Large) is expected to file a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in the District. Because of legislation passed in May, gay couples married in other states already may have their marriages recognized in the District.

      "The D.C. City Council has stated that their intention is to redefine marriage by going beyond recognizing homosexual marriage to allow them to be performed in the District of Columbia," Jackson's statement said. "This redefinition of marriage will permanently impact D.C. businesses, education, and the family unit without the voice of the residents being heard."

      Jackson, senior pastor of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, has become the leading critic of efforts to legalize same-sex marriage in the District. He has aligned with a group called Stand4MarriageDC, but they are fighting what many consider to be a losing battle.

      In May, Jackson filed a request with the elections board to hold a referendum to block the council bill allowing same-sex marriages performed in others states to be legally recognized.

      The elections board, in a strongly worded ruling, blocked Jackson's referendum request. The two-member board cited D.C. elections law, which prohibits a vote on a matter covered by the Human Rights Act. The 1977 act outlaws discrimination against gays and lesbians and other minority groups.

      Many observers say Jackson, who registered to vote in the District in April, will have difficulty convincing the board that its previous ruling should not also apply to the latest proposed initiative.

      "It is our belief that once again Bishop Jackson will find that the laws of D.C. protect minorities from discrimination of the sort that he and his followers would like to inflict," said Peter Rosenstein, president of the Campaign for All D.C. Families, which supports same-sex marriage. "I hope that when this initiative is ruled out of order that the bishop will then return to Maryland and leave the people of the District alone so that they may continue to celebrate the diversity that has made our city great."


      Washington Post


      DOMA Do-Over
      The Justice Department gets it right this time.

      Monday, August 31, 2009

      THE FIRST two paragraphs of the Justice Department's seven-page brief in Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer v. United States of America make it clear that the Obama administration learned its lesson in how to defend a federal law with which it doesn't agree without dabbling in noxious, outdated and irrelevant arguments. The plaintiffs seeking to challenge the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriages, simply do not have legal standing. The case is viewed by gay rights groups as such an imperfect vehicle that they want Smelt-Hammer dismissed.

      Besides the question of whether the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Southern Division has jurisdiction over this case, the government's case for throwing out the Smelt-Hammer challenge rests on two solid arguments. "Plaintiffs are married under the laws of California," the brief contends, "but they are residents of California and do not allege that any other state has refused to recognize their marriage." Thus, a claim of imminent injury has not been established. Also, because Mr. Smelt and Mr. Hammer "do not allege that they have applied for and been denied any federal benefits because of the operation of DOMA," injury has not, in fact, been established either.

      These same sound legal arguments were made in an administration brief that was filed in June. But they were obscured by the firestorm over a legal citation of a case involving incest and the untrue assertion that DOMA didn't single out gay men and lesbians for discrimination. That mistake was not repeated. In fact, the third paragraph of the latest brief states plainly that "this Administration does not support DOMA, as a matter of policy, believes that it is discriminatory, and supports its repeal." We wholeheartedly support the Obama administration in this -- and eagerly await its push to change the law.


      San Francisco Chronicle
      Former Miss California sues over firing
      By ANTHONY McCARTNEY, AP Entertainment Writer

      Monday, August 31, 2009

      (08-31) 14:58 PDT LOS ANGELES (AP) --

      Former Miss California USA Carrie Prejean sued pageant officials Monday for libel, slander and religious discrimination, accusing them of telling her to stop mentioning God even before her controversial remarks against gay marriage.

      Prejean sued California pageant executive director Keith Lewis and actress and former Miss USA Shanna Moakler, who served as a co-director before resigning in protest of Prejean.

      Prejean was fired in June by pageant officials who said she missed several scheduled appearances.

      Her attorney, Chuck LiMandri, said that wasn't true, and Prejean was ousted because of controversial remarks in April during the Miss USA pageant that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

      She was named first runner-up, and many believe she lost her shot at the Miss USA crown because of her answer.

      LiMandri said Prejean filed suit only after he sought detailed information on what events Prejean missed.

      "I wanted to give them every opportunity to provide the basis for those claims," LiMandri said.

      He said he found no proof that Prejean missed events. "There were no contract violations," he said.

      The lawsuit claims Lewis and Moakler both told Prejean not to mention God on her Miss USA application or at public events at least two months before she gave her anti-gay marriage answer.

      The suit also claims Moakler and Lewis improperly revealed that Miss California USA had paid for Prejean's breast implants.

      Moakler's attorney, Mel Avanzado, said in a statement that Prejean's lawsuit was without merit.

      "More importantly, as everyone who watched or read her public statements is well aware, Ms. Prejean's unfortunate and bigoted statements are responsible for any public humiliation or damages to her reputation that she has claimed to have suffered," Avanzado wrote. "Ms. Moakler strenuously denies that she did anything wrong and looks forward to proving that in a court of law."

      Prejean is also suing publicist Roger Neal, who handles press for Miss California USA and Lewis.

      Neal said he could not immediately comment on the lawsuit.

      The lawsuit accuses Lewis, Moakler and Neal of using Internet sites such as Facebook and Twitter to post disparaging remarks about Prejean.

      The lawsuit does not name Donald Trump, who owns Miss California USA's parent organization and who in May refused to fire Prejean, a decision he reversed a month later.

      The suit states Trump authorized Prejean's appearance on the "Fox and Friends" show in May and a Shape magazine interview, both of which were sighted by Lewis as unauthorized public appearances by the beauty queen.

      The complaint does not state a specific dollar figure that Prejean is seeking. It claims she has been subject to public ridicule and humiliation and lost out on modeling work because she lost her crown. She has also suffered anxiety, depression and loss of sleep since her firing, the lawsuit states.



      My comment --
      Rightwingers are pure bigots. With lots of money.


      Exclusive: Mary Cheney gave $1,000 to anti-gay Senate hopeful
      By John Byrne

      Published: August 31, 2009

      Mary Cheney, the daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney and onetime gay outreach director for Coors Brewing Company, gave $1,000 to a Republican Senate hopeful who voted against same-sex marriage and allowing gay couples to adopt children in the District of Columbia.
      Cheney, 40, has a two-year old son with her partner of 17 years, Heather Poe. The donation to former Rep. Rob Portman (R-OH) was made in May. Portman is seeking the Senate seat that will be vacated by Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) when he retires in 2011.

      Cheney's donation is remarkable considering her public comments on same-sex marriage and gay adoption. In 2004, she reportedly considered quitting her father's re-election campaign after President Bush endorsed a federal marriage banning gay marriage. In 2007, she rebuked televangelist James Dobson for comments criticizing gay couples' adoption.

      "Every piece of remotely responsible research that has been done in the last 20 years has shown there is no difference between children raised by same-sex parents and children raised by opposite-sex parents," Cheney said. "What matters is being raised in a stable, loving environment."

      "When Heather and I decided to have a baby, I knew it wasn't going to be the most popular decision," Cheney added. "This is a baby. This is a blessing from God. It is not a political statement. It is not a prop to be used in a debate, on either side of a political issue. It is my child."

      As an Ohio congressman, Portman voted yes on banning gay adoptions in the District of Columbia in 1999. He also voted in favor of a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage in 2004.

      Portman's opposition to same-sex marriage is particularly salient, because both of his potential Democratic challengers favor its legalization. Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner reaffirmed her backing for gay marriage in a posting at The Huffington Post in June, and a spokesman for Ohio Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher announced that he'd reversed his opposition the same month.

      Robert Paduchik, Portman's campaign manager, told the Columbus Dispatch in June that the erstwhile congressman still opposes same-sex marriage.

      "Rob Portman has always believed that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman," Paduchik said.

      Portman, 53, resigned from Congress in 2005 after being appointed the United States Trade Representative by President Bush in 2005. He was named director of the Office of Management and Budget under Bush after the organization's director, Joshua Bolten, was appointed Bush's chief of staff in 2006. He announced his candidacy for the Senate in January.

      A copy of Portman's FEC filing listing Cheney's donation is available here.

      Michael Petrelis contributed to this report.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.