WHO IS BRUCE MAIMON?

My trusty Google is coming up empty, except for hits produced by Aaron Park. Is this Orwellian or is my Google playing tricks on me?

Lee

NEVER MIND

I just sent Mr. Maimon an e-mail.

Mr. Maimon

I would like to check out the truth of the following posted by Aaron Park who has a track record of

"making a lot of claims that are not the truth"--Auburn Mayor Mike Holmes

This post is in honor of Charlie Brown's coming out on the Bruce Maimon show against traditional marriage. We have known Charlie is a liberal for a long time - but the below email from yes on 8 makes the no on 8 crowd look ridiculous.

Charlie heretofore has not taken a postion for or against Prop 8 to my knowlege.

Your answer would be greatly appreciated.

Lee Reed

Lee,

http://www.kfbk.com/cc-common/podcast.html

Scroll down the page for the show in question. Once the audio starts you can skip around if you want. The Q&A is near the end of the show. I didn't listen to the Prop 8 part (don't care) but did listen to some of the rest.

Bob

Charlie Brown’s Extreme Anti-Marriage Support

Yes on Proposition 8’s campaign director Karen England issued the following statement regarding 4th congressional candidate Charlie Brown’s opposition to Proposition 8:

“For California families, there is no other political issue this election as important as saving marriage. That’s why it is imperative that voters support only candidates who respect traditional marriage. Charlie Brown’s astonishing opposition to Proposition 8 reveals just how out of touch he is with citizens in the 4th congressional district—and the overwhelming majority of Californians and Americans.

“After evading the issue for months, Mr. Brown finally declared that he does not support Proposition 8. This means that Mr. Brown supports four activist judges overturning Proposition 22, and imposing their social agenda on Californians.

“Not only am I working to pass Proposition 8, I’m a resident of the 4th congressional district. I know my fellow voters in this district—they’re my neighbors and friends. In his opposition to Proposition 8, Mr. Brown sides with radical liberals who certainly don’t represent the values of our community.

“Given his outright opposition to the most essential issue to families—the definition of marriage—Mr. Brown is not the candidate values voters will ever support.”

A 4th congressional district resident from Roseville, Karen England is the campaign director for Yes on Proposition 8. This voter-supported campaign committee is dedicated to educating voters about the issue of marriage. To learn more, visit www.YesonProposition8.com

PROMPT REPLY FROM BRUCE MAIMON

RE: An Aaron Park claim‏
From: MAIMAN, BRUCE (XXXXXXXXXXXXX)
Sent: Tue 10/14/08 5:08 PM
To: Lee Reed (leereed79@hotmail.com)

I'd feel better going back to the audio to get it precisely as it went down, but as I recall, after a bit contentious exchange with a caller, I believe I asked Charlie if he supported Prop 8, and he said no. Now the best thing for you to do (which I will also do before Tom McClintock arrives in studio Thursday) is check the podcast on the KFBK website. KFBK.com, keyword "podcast" and it shows my ugly mug, which, as risky as it is, you have to click. Charlie was on last Thursday and the appropriate date will coincide with his appearance. It was the first hour. I do believe we started taking calls after the first commercial break at 20 after.

Mr. Park is a bit hyperbolic, it seems to me. Charlie didn't come out against traditional marriage, but that's the kind of inflammatory comment you get with emotional hot button issues like gay marriage. After all, Charlie is in what Mayor Holmes would call a traditional marriage. But it's apparent that Mr. Park has a clear if somewhat strident opinion about Mr. Brown to begin with and that might lead one to be a bit unreasonable.

Incidentally, he mispelled my name. I could care less, but I'm a stickler for facts and try to be very careful about them. When someone is careless with something as simple as that, well, I'm not sure if that's a sign of recklessness for the sake of expediency or a sign of disinterest in accuracy.

I hope this helps Lee. Let me know if I can be of further assistance.

B

Again, Aaron lying through his teeth. Incorrigible.

Lee

A TRUE CHARITY?

McClintock in his 2010 stash panic dump, shunted 5K to Cap Resources. A few weeks later Cap Resources' Karen England goes full bore against Charlie Brown in very hyperbolic rhetoric.

Charlie Brown contributed 55K to charities that have in no way, shape, or form emulated Ms. England. One of the recipients, The Gathering Inn has a bipartisan base of support as evidenced by the meeting at United Methodist Church in Loomis. Plenty of (R)s and (D) working side by side in common purpose, to serve the homeless of this region.

It's a huge stretch to say:

“For California families, there is no other political issue this election as important as saving marriage."

OK, it's more than a huge stretch. It is simply false. With everything else going on today many more people are worried about their jobs or their retirement investments than are worried about Prop 8.

And although Prop 8 did rather well in a recent poll (after a blast of TV ads in the same market areas) it's by no means clear that majority of Californians support it.

England's statements about Brown are simply lies. Lies. In black and white and proven right here on this page.

Shameful. Prop 8 supporters will do anything to promote their narrow views. I hope voters care enough to think about it for a minute (between frowning over their latest 401K statement and the latest bad news on the coming recession) to vote no on this silly measure.

Bob

Sorry - Gentlemen we have what we need to counter your predictible responses.

Soon, it will be available for your listening pleasure.

Readers should also note that the response of the Brown campaign is to attack this blogger rather than refute that Brown is indeed opposing Prop 8.

Of further note - One can also assume in the email that Lee Reed sent to Bruce Maimon that he referenced Mike Holmes comments about me based on an inaccurate portrayal of a past blog post.

This is a clear indicator of Mr. Reed deciding to inhabit the same sewer he accuses people he disagrees with of doing.

Attacks Based on Prop 8 Bad for McClintock--
Keep them up, Aaron!

How important is Prop 8 to California voters versus other issues? A recent nationwide poll may help us understand. Here's one that specifically asks about gay marriage:

Newsweek Poll,, October 8-9, 2008 vs. September 10-11, 2008
"Which ONE of the following ISSUES is MOST important in determining your vote for president this year? The economy and jobs. Taxes and government spending. The Iraq war. Terrorism and national security. Energy policy and gas prices. Issues like abortion, guns, and same-sex marriage. Health care." (Options rotated)

10/8-9/08 9/10-11/08
% %
Economy and jobs
48 39
Taxes, government spending
10 14
Health care
9 7
Terrorism, national security
8 10
Iraq war
8 10
Energy policy, gas prices
8 8
Abortion, guns, marriage
6 8
Other/None of these (vol.)
1 1
Unsure
2 3

OK. So among voters nationwide, the combination of ALL of the typical Republican God, guns and gays wedge issues is most important for choosing a president for only 6% of registered voters. This despite the fact that the new president will likely nominate two or even three supreme court justices over the next four years.

6 percent...just above "Other/None of these" and "Unsure"

Will the numbers be much different in California? Of course. The Yes and No on 8 efforts will be spending something like $55 million to make sure this issue is in the face of virtually every voter throughout the state. This spending will artificially lift the importance of this issue here even in the face of an overwhleming national economic crisis and while the country is fighting two wars. The spending will no doubt increase the size of the barbells on the curve of voter interest across the political spectrum where the most conservative and most liberal voters care a LOT about this while the rest of us wonder what all the hype is about. But if anybody here believes that "For California families, there is no other political issue this election as important as saving marriage" as defined by Prop 8 you are taking powerful illegal drugs.

Even in CD4 we know that the hard-core social conservatives (people who base their votes on social issues over all else) really only make up about 15% of the voter population. This based on McClintock's 16% of the vote here in the 2003 special election for governor. Schwarzenegger is socially well to the left which made McClintock the only choice for social conservatives. Unfortunately for McClintock then (and this year too) this block of voters doesn't make up enough of the voting public to seal the deal. A majority of CD4 voters may vote for Prop 8 but for most of them a congressional candidate's position for or against 8 will not be a meaningful factor in their vote.

What I am saying Aaron is that you are preaching to the choir on this issue. The people Tom needs to attract are moderate Republicans. Your Prop 8 attacks on Brown are going to turn these people off on McClintock. Moderate Republicans are sick of the social conservatives. After eight years of Republican politicians pandering to the Christian right what do they have to show for it? A broken party and lost election after lost election.

Bob

FINANCIAL MARKET PANACEA

McClintock's solution:

Attack Charlie Brown on Prop 8

Market closes

Dow down 730s
Nas down 150 (over 8%

Is McClintock out of touch or what!!!

Such a poor campaign strategy for the times...

Lee

Sorry Gentlemen - we are talking about the 4th CD.

If you think I am wrong - get a mailer out saying McClintock is out of touch because he supports yes on 8. That would settle the argument.

Aaron, you insinuate that CA-04 is some place that is not effected big time by this financial panic. You work in a financial related industry. You can't be that out of touch with what is causing many, many folks to have restless sleep.

Get real

Lee

McCain wins third and final presidential debate!

McCain wins debate!

___________
|Click here| to donate to John McCain and Sarah Palin!
------------

Oops. Put my ad up too soon.

McCain didn't win the debate.

Darn.

Bob / Lee,

Watching Charlie and you both squirm on this one is almost as much fun as the anti-war rally. Where does Charlies stand today???

As to the importance of the issue, you must remember that there is a intensity factor as well as rating and position in the minds of voters. Call it passion if you will, but something like Prop 8 brings out many voters who vote BECAUSE it is on the ballot and they often vote for candidate who agree with them on THAT issue which is where this cause Charlie so much trouble.

John

PS: Remember Bob, the solution to our economic crisis is to work hard and consume less than we make... I do not see that princple at work in any of Charlie's plans so he is WRONG on the number one issue of this race as well!

John,

The passion on Prop 8 if plotted along the political spectrum is at either end. The middle is dispassionate. Social conservatives are all virulently for Prop 8. Gays and social liberals are against it. These people represent the extremes.

These voters are already going to the polls for Prop 8. My point is that a Yes on 8 voter is already 98% likely to vote for Tom McClintcok anyway. And the No on 8 people are either going to vote for Brown because he's not McClintock or they won't vote at all.

So how does Charlie's position on Prop 8 hurt him? I don't see it.

As far as your solution to the economic problem goes you live in an oversimplistic world, John. You don't appear to understand macroeconomics so you probably should refrain from commenting about it.

Bob

"But we're already starting to see the results of redefining marriage. Just last week a kindergarten class in a public school was taken on a school-approved "field trip" to witness their gay teacher's "wedding" to her partner. These young, impressionable children were taken from the classroom, where they should have been learning reading, writing and math, to participate in a same-sex marriage ceremony. This is what anti-family forces have in mind when they apply Section 51933 in the classroom."

Interesting anecdote, but I just can't get all angry about kids going to a gay wedding. (putting wedding and field trip in quotes really doesn't mean anything either)

Even if this passes, gay people will still be able to get married in churches, their marriage just will not be recognized under law. I don't see how this law would keep a teacher from taking kids to see a gay wedding.

Bob,

On the subject of gay marriage, this piece recently appeared in the SF Chronicle. It basically argues what I've been saying all along -- Brown has to hide his own beliefs to win.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/18/BAKS13IVV0.DTL&hw=tom+mcclintock&sn=001&sc=1000

Is he a liar? Except for the effigy, not necessarily.

Is he disingenuous in how he markets himself? Definitely.

That's what keeps me here and elsewhere in this damn "blogosphere."

Hector

Note to all:

I did NOT make the post above at 12:51. Sorry somebody out there feels compelled to impersonate me...I guess I'm hitting home with a few points.

Bob

When I get home - I will check the IP address against those I know you use and see if we should delete that comment.

Aaron,

Thank you. I have DHCP so my I.P. address changes every time I reboot, I believe. But it's been several days since I last rebooted. The I.P. should end in .218.

Bob

Bob,

It was a good example of what Charlie would say!

John

"Bob" - the other Bob has a legit email address.

we will just have to track the difference.

Aaron,

OK, thanks. Once again: I am not the author of the October 20 12:51 post above.

Bob

CHURCH PARKING LOT LEAFLETING SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED BY IRS

John Stoos primarily, and Efrem from Arizona as at a distance Greek chorus, tries to make up the law to suit their narrow partisan purposes. They eschew playing by the rules.

Not playing by the rules has consequences. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops fully comprehends this and accordingly post:

2007 Political Activity Guidelines for Catholic Organizations

http://www.usccb.org/ogc/guidelines.shtml#13

Regarding any political activity in parking lots, this:

The opening paragraph...

The following document is provided by the USCCB Office of General Counsel in order to assist (arch)dioceses, parishes, and other Catholic organizations ("Catholic organizations") that are exempt from federal income tax under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code ("IRC") in distinguishing activities that are permitted during election campaigns from activities that are prohibited. This guidance focuses primarily on section 501(c)(3) of the IRC, because it contains a prohibition, which has been interpreted as absolute, against participation or intervention in a political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate, as a condition of maintaining federal income tax exemption.

(...) and parking lots

Parking Lots. The parking lots of most Catholic churches and other Catholic organizations are classified as private property. They do not qualify as public forums to which First Amendment free speech protections attach. Although some cases have concluded that parking lots are public forums, these cases dealt with parking lots adjacent to commercial venues, such as shopping malls. Church parking lots are easily distinguished, in terms of purpose, use and access, from commercial parking lots, community shopping centers and malls. As such, Catholic organizations generally have the right to regulate access to their parking lots, including access for political leafleting. Catholic organizations should consult local legal counsel if questions arise about the proper classification of their parking lots. If a parking lot is classified as private property, a Catholic organization should not authorize the distribution of partisan campaign materials or biased voter education materials in the lot. Parking lots are distinguishable from public streets and sidewalks adjacent to Catholic organizations. These spaces generally are classified as public property over which the Catholic organization lacks control over access. [See, e.g., Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center, 23 Cal.3d 899, 592 P.2d 341 (1979), aff'd, 100 S.Ct. 2035 (1980); New Jersey Coalition Against War in Middle East v. J.M.B. Realty, 650 A.2d 757 (1994), cert. denied, Short Hills Associates v. New Jersey Coalition Against War in Middle East, 516 U.S. 812 (1995).]

That can't be any clearer. Churches are not forbidden from engaging in political activity. But if they want to be tax exempt, that is another matter.

Churches can not have it both ways...

Lee

Lee,

It is truly amazing how cloudy you can make something that is very clear: NO a church cannot give permission to distribute partisan material nor can they distribute it themselves, but neither is being done! Just some good old 1st Amendment pamphleteering that is a long standing American tradition.

Now here is an interesting side note and since you like doing legal research you can confirm or deny it: Let's say a group begins putting leaflets on cars at a church and when they are about half way through the lot, someone from the church asks them to stop. They must comply, but the leaflets that have been placed on the cars are now the property of the car owner and should not be removed by the campaign worker or the church!

John

Sunday afternoon, 3:02PM, at the Lee Reed Residence.

RECORDING: "Thank you for calling the IRS emergency hotline. Like any other responsible government agency, we are closed for the weekend. We will reopen on Monday during normal government hours, 10:30AM to 11:30AM, and 2:30PM to 4:00PM DC Standard Time. We do not have time to listen to our voice mail, so please call back during that time."

LEE REED: "Ah, shoot."

Monday morning, 10:31AM, at the Lee Reed Residence.

RECORDING: "Thank you for calling the IRS emergency hotline. Today, we mark the commemoration of the Guacamole Act of 1972, and will be closed to allow all government employees time to consider the ramifications of this landmark legislation. We will reopen on Tuesday during normal government hours--"

LEE REED: "What the?"

Tuesday morning, 10:31AM, at the Lee Reed Residence.

IRS: "IRS Emergency Hotline, can we help you?"

LEE REED: "Hello. I'd like to report a church leafleting."

IRS: "Okay, Ashurch Eafletting. Do you have his social security number, and how do you know he has committed tax fraud?"

LEE REED: "No, no...a church leafleting. There are people putting leaflets on cars at a church supporting Tom McClintock."

IRS: "Oh yes, Tom McClintock. We keep getting complaints that he hasn't paid his taxes, but we've already checked into that. He has paid all of his taxes, he just wants to cut taxes for everyone else, and he wants to eliminate the IRS. So even though we don't like him either, there's nothing we can do."

LEE REED: "Listen, the Supreme Court said that Pruneyard doesn't give you a right to be on church property and put leaflets on cars."

IRS: "Okay, so do you have Mr. Pruneyard's social security number?"

LEE REED: "You're not getting me here. If we don't stop this, people will know that Charlie Brown supports gay marriage and taxpayer-funded abortion on demand. We've got to stop this from happening!"

IRS: "Oh, now we're getting somewhere. We at the IRS are very familiar with Charlie Brown, and he is our preferred candidate for this congressional district. Far better than that guy who wants to cut taxes."

LEE REED: "So we need the IRS to give a cease and desist order to these churches."

IRS: "Got it. So the churches are distributing literature that tells the truth about Charlie Brown."

LEE REED: "Well, sort of. The churches aren't distributing literature. These FAMILIES are coming to the churches, and distributing the literature outside of the church."

IRS: "Hmmm."

LEE REED: "What?"

IRS: "So the literature is never inside the church?"

LEE REED: "No."

IRS: "And the church didn't instruct it to be passed out?"

LEE REED: "No."

IRS: "Well, unfortunately sir, there's this thing called the First Amendment..."

LEE REED: "Let me tell you something, I care even less about the First Amendment than we do about the Second Amendment!"

IRS: "I get that, sir. Charlie Brown doesn't like that one either. But the church isn't instructing the literature to be handed out."

LEE REED: "But they are NOT saying NOT to hand it out."

IRS: "Aha. And is there a law requiring them to say 'don't hand out that literature'?"

LEE REED: "Well, there ought to be."

IRS: "Tis a shame. If only people didn't know that Charlie Brown was for gay marriage and radical abortion on demand, he might be able to get elected, pass such a law, and we could muzzle these churches once and for all."

LEE REED: "But there has to be something we can do."

IRS: "Well, we could ask Barack Obama to come campaign for Charlie. Would that help?"

LEE REED: "Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!"

That was one of the funniest comments I have ever read.

Lee - the Pruneyard decision basically voided what you wrote above. We have known about Pruneyard for years.

I know that you are a go along to get along type of Christian. I know many like that... the unfortunate fact is that those of us who think Abortion and Homosexuality are wrong have a right to speak up as well.

Even the courts have upheld that - at least until hate crimes laws get taken to the next level under the guise of equality.

You of all people know the scripture about the rocks crying out... that's what is going on here...

Just go for it, Aaron. Churches can't have it both ways. If they want to get political, then they lose their tax exempt status. The rules are quite clear and will be enforced.

I am going to point out your scoffing to some very interested folks...

Lee

Lee, I'll point you again to the cogent point, in case your liberal gasket blew and you missed it.

LEE REED: "But they are NOT saying NOT to hand it out."

IRS: "Aha. And is there a law requiring them to say 'don't hand out that literature'?"

LEE REED: "Well, there ought to be."

Churches cannot "be political" by omission in this case -- they would have to take an overt action.

Just admit it -- your attempt to intimidate, misinform and suppress conservative voters has failed.

Thanks again, RC

good stuff

Lee

I'd like to ask you respectfully, aaron, how would you feel if you had to ask every Californian how they felt about your right to marry your wife, who I'm sure you love dearly. How would you feel if your right to marry your wife, who I'm sure you love dearly, was taken away from you? I have been with my partner for 11 years - we pay our taxes, we contribute to our communities, we are both professionals. No-one who knows us questions our right to marry because they know we are decent law-abiding citizens like everyone else. Yet thousands of you in favor of Prop 8 spend endless time and energy trying to legislate over the lives of millions of Californians who you don't know and you don't understand. Is it not somehow convenient that you reject the court decision? Why not just reject all court decisions you don't agree with? It was decided by four Republican justices might I remind you, who are hardly activist judges. They realized when coming to know many of the gay couples represented in the case, that it was amoral and illegitimate to deny marriage rights to people who exhibited commitment and love beyond many heterosexual couples. Courts are there to protect minorities and uphold justice, and are a key feature of American democracy. Yet you feel obliged to overturn this decision because you don't personally agree with it. Your idea of 'traditional marriage' is so hypocritical. Marriage as we know it has not been around in virtually all societies. If we were to use historical marriage as a benchmark, we should be supporting arranged marriage and polygamy which have been dominant in many historical societies. We would also support a system where women were subservient to men as has been the case in most historical versions of marriage. Divorce was also illegal in many societies - why aren't you trying to ban divorce in the California constitution? I suspect you, like many others supporting Prop 8, root your support in religion. Don't you think Jesus would have wanted you to spend your time doing things like spreading peace and love, helping the poor, helping the sick, upholding justice for all? Instead you waste your time infringing on the rights of people who love one another and want nothing more than to be left in peace. If, as many proponents of Prop 8 argue, marriage is an institution for children, then why not legislate against straight couples who choose not to have children? Why don't you take away the rights of infertile couples to marry? Why don't you ban divorce as it affects children? Yet instead you just pick on gay people. And the answer is at your core all of you are a bunch of hypocrites and bigots. Why don't you just come out in the open about it?

Alanl:

You miss the entire point of the debate: Marriage is a creation ordinance that God established to be between one man and one woman. I can't go into how the plumbing works in detail on a family friendly blog, but you can ask most kids who have seen naked little ones and they can explain that there are differences.

These differences allow the two to become one as God intended from the very beginning. The state recognizes this and protects that institution. What you and you partner want is to make something that is not a marriage be treated as if it were a marriage: As Abraham Lincoln said so well, "If you call the tail of a dog a leg, the dog still has four legs. Calling a tail a leg does not make it one."

Today the institution of marriage is more than just a creational ordinance: Now it also reflects the great love that Jesus had for His Bride the Church [see Ephesians chapter five]. So yes we should hate divorce as Jesus did and we should strive to have marriages that are loving so they are a true reflection of what they represent.

So I hope you can understand that no one is "picking on gay people" but simply point out that they are violating the institution of marriage just the same as adulterers or fornicators. You are wrong in what you are doing and I will pray that God would pour out His mercy on you and your partner so that you might come to repent and trust Jesus for who He really is rather the modern 'love-child' image we have projected on Him.

John

So, John, you are asking a secular government to take the side of Creationists, which is a theological matter.

Prop 8 specifically avoids any reference to religion:

PROPOSITION 8
This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the
provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution.
This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by
adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are
printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.
SECTION 1. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage
Protection Act.”
SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution,
to read:
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized
in California.

Now, it comes to mind back some time ago that there was some dispute in world class athletic circles as to how to determine gender. After several iterations of this issue, there still seems to be no definitive answer.

http://www.casm-acms.org/forms/statements/GendereVerifEng.pdf

The getting naked criteria that John suggests will be obvious is not exactly so.

And so how would the State of California determine this matter if Prop 8 were to pass and then also pass Constitutional review? And how would the matter of tranies fit in here?

Beware the terrible simplifiers...

Lee

The KKK has donated $250,000 to the Yes on 8 campaign. Finally it seems that we are getting America back to its roots!

I love the anon comments - hypocrites and biggots, they call us... and they break out the KKK.

Of course these are the same tolerant people who vandalized Yes on 8 supporter's houses and are systematically destroying campaign signs all over CA.

It doesn't stop there - they are also publishing the names of donors in their self-righteous rampage.

If it was simply about equality, they wouldn't be going psycho for their cause.

Finally - the real rage that the No on 8 crowd are feeling is toward religion in General. I have noticed that most comments use the word biggot, small-minded and religion in them.

Nice job, guys... nice Job. You are proving what I have felt all along - there is indeed an inverse relationship between Gay Rights and Religious Freedom... because that's they way you want it.

No dissenting voices allowed... your definition of tolerance

I think the KKK comment is over the top. There is no real proof that the KKK endorsed McClintock. It should not be used.

But Aaron - you are really sounding frustrated tonight.

Bob