Praise: The DISCLOSE Act

There are a few responses to the Citizens United decision that are underway.  Some seek a constitutional amendment to declare that corporations are not persons and thus deny them the right to contribute to campaigns and PACs, but a constitutional amendment is notoriously difficult to achieve.  Legislation is much, much easier.  One of the legislative approaches I started to look at following today's e-mail from Eugene Delgaudio, who regularly lies about legislation that is usually directed at equal treatment of gays and lesbians.

Mr. Delgaudio's paranoia goes in a new direction with today's e-mail. As always, he thinks that my first name is "Some".  Here we go.

Dear Some,

There is a dangerous bill before the U.S. Senate right now.

And unlike the other legislation the Homosexual Lobby is pushing, this one is not designed to give radical homosexuals special privileges...

Of course, there is no "Homosexual Lobby" and there are no "special privileges" sought by the LGBTQ Community.  We want equality.  But that is not what has Eugene Delgaudio scared this time.

This bill, the DISCLOSE Act, will be used to attack Public Advocate directly.

Let's pause and look at what the Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections Act of 2012, also called the DISCLOSE Act of 2012, really is.  According to the Library of Congress

Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections Act of 2012 or DISCLOSE 2012 Act - Amends the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) to redefine the term "independent expenditure" as an expenditure by a person that, when taken as a whole, expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, or is the functional equivalent of express advocacy because it can be interpreted by a reasonable person only as advocating the election or defeat of a candidate, taking into account whether the communication involved mentions a candidacy, a political party, or a challenger to a candidate, or takes a position on a candidates, qualifications, or fitness for office.

Expands the period during which certain communications are treated as electioneering communications.

Prescribes disclosure requirements for corporations, labor organizations, and certain other entities, including a political committee with an account established for the purpose of accepting donations or contributions that do not comply with the contribution limits or source prohibitions under FECA (but only with respect to such accounts).

Prescribes disclaimer requirements for public communications that include functional equivalent of express advocacy.

Requires any communication transmitted through radio or television to include an individual or organizational disclosure statement, together with: (1) the Top Two Funders List of the persons providing the largest and second largest aggregate payments of $10,000 or more for a radio communication, and (2) the Top Five Funders List of the five persons providing the largest aggregate payments of $10,000 or more for a television communication.

Repeals the prohibition against political contributions by individuals age 17 or younger.

So, this would force Mr. Delgaudio to disclose his donor list when he is trying to use his tax exempt, non-profit organization to influence elections.  Here is more of Mr. Delgaudio's e-mail.

The DISCLOSE Act is being disguised by the radical left as an attempt to level the playing field.

But in reality, it will force every non-profit lobby organization -- like Public Advocate -- to reveal their complete lists of donors!

My friend, the Homosexual Lobby will not hesitate to use this information to attack all the Public Advocate’s donors; pro-Family Americans who have given generously to see the Homosexual Agenda stopped.

So, this is today's paranoia.  If their names are revealed, the bigots who contribute to Eugene Delgaudio's organization, certified as an active anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, will stop giving so generously.  They won't want their bigotry to be known by others.

That’s why we have to join with millions of other conservative Americans in telling the Senate to vote no on the DISCLOSE Act.

Mr. Delgaudio goes on to beg for money as he always does. 

Regarding the DISCLOSE Act, it should be obvious that I am biased and want to have Mr. Delgaudio's group and all hate organizations exposed to more sunshine.  The League of Women Voters, usually seen as non-partisan, has published a FAQ on the DISCLOSE Act.  They even address Mr. Delgaudio's fear directly.

Q.  Won’t disclosure of large contributions expose funders to unfair retaliation by disgruntled activists? 

 A.  The Supreme Court has held that the value of disclosure to informing voters outweighs any minor or imagined retaliation against funders.  The Court has said that in real, demonstrated cases of retaliation, an exception to disclosure may be granted.

They also address the notion that this might be aimed at solely conservative organizations.

Q.  Aren’t unions given special treatment in the DISCLOSE Act so that Democrats can protect their funding sources?

A.  We don’t believe so.  Unions are covered by the DISCLOSE Act, just as for-profit and non-profit corporations and trade associations such as the Chamber of Commerce are covered.

Q.  Isn’t the DISCLOSE Act just a way to limit Republican funding sources so that Democrats will have an electoral advantage?

A.  When campaign finance loopholes are created, both political parties typically do their best to exploit the loophole.  The disclosure loophole created by the huge spending unleashed by Citizens United will be no different.  The voters are the ones who will lose because without disclosure, they can’t know who is trying to influence their votes.

While I like the idea that corporations should not be legally recognized as persons in terms of our election system, I also like sunshine.  If we don't know who is attacking us, there is a huge problem.

But I am writing anonymously.  Well, if I have full equality, including having no risk to my employment for being gay, then I will be happy to have sunshine on myself as well.

FollowUp 6: Eugene Delgaudio Lies About Legislation Again

Dear Some,

So begins the latest lie from Eugene Delgaudio.  This time it is a lie regarding potential litigation.

Another attack came sooner than even I feared.

I have just found out the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is launching another attack on myself and Public Advocate as a whole.

No.  The Southern Poverty Law Center is not launching an attack.  They are responding, yesterday in the linked blog post, to Mr. Delgaudio's appropriation and modification of copyright materials without attribution or payment.  They are responding to Mr. Delgaudio taking that material, an engagement photograph, a shot of love, and turning it into a tool for hate.  It is Mr. Delgaudio who launched the attack.  The Southern Poverty Law Center is the defender of what is right.  The following in bold is from the linked site.

It was supposed to be a reminder of one of the most special days shared by Brian Edwards and Tom Privitere – their engagement photo.

The black-and-white photograph shows the two men kissing with the New York City skyline in the background. The picture was one of several that Edwards posted on his blog to allow friends and family unable to attend the couple’s wedding to share their joy. But what was supposed to be a symbol of the life-long commitment between two people in love was hijacked by an anti-gay hate group.

Recently, the men discovered their photo had been taken from the Internet and used in an anti-gay mailer to attack a political candidate in Colorado. The city skyline had been removed from the background and replaced with snow-covered trees one might find in Colorado. Bold words, on a red background, were added: “State Senator Jean White’s idea of ‘Family Values?’” White supported Colorado’s civil union legislation.

“This photo represented our love and commitment and the many challenges we have overcome in order to share our lives together,” Edwards said. “When I first saw how our photo had been publicly destroyed and used against gay and lesbian families, I was shocked, heartbroken and livid. I don’t want this to happen to another gay or lesbian couple.”

Neither the couple, nor the photographer, knew about the doctored photo until a friend of the couple informed them. The mailer was the work of Public Advocate of the United States, a Falls Church, Va., organization the Southern Poverty Law Center has designated as an anti-gay hate group.

Today, the SPLC sent a cease-and-desist letter to the group and Eugene Delgaudio, its president. The letter, sent on behalf of the couple and photographer Kristina Hill, warns that the SPLC is investigating the unauthorized use of the copyrighted photo and demands that Delgaudio, Public Advocate and anyone acting on their behalf immediately stop using the photo. It asks Delgaudio to confirm within 10 days that he and Public Advocate have stopped using the photo.

The rest of the article, including the original and the doctored photographs, can be seen at the Southern Poverty Law Center.  Mr. Delgaudio's e-mail continues.

Last week I sent you several emails warning that the SPLC was determined to destroy our organization and our cause.

Together, you helped me raise a decent amount of money for the coming fight, but I must admit that we fell short of my goal...

And with the enemy so suddenly upon us, I am very worried.

So, again, Mr. Delgaudio is after money.  He enriches himself at the expense of the happiness of others.  Evil.

This attack is forming quickly -- I have not even received anything in writing, but they have already leaked it to the press.

Leaked it?  No.  Released it.  A leak implies that there is something to keep secret.

They again claim that Public Advocate is a “hate group” simply because you and I refuse to embrace the Homosexual Agenda.

No.  You don't need to embrace anything and you will not be labelled a hate group.  Mr. Delgaudio makes money by encouraging hate and working actively against equality.

And they are demanding I “cease all operations” in this fight.

Almost.  This is close to true.  The Southern Poverty Law Center's cease and desist letter calls on Mr. Delgaudio to "immediately cease and desist any further unauthorized use of Brian and Tom’s images and likenesses, and any further unauthorized use of Kristina’s copyrighted photos or other intellectual property."  It would be good if they could call upon Mr. Delgaudio to cease all operations, but that's not what's happening in this particular case.  Mr. Delgaudio chose to start this fight and the Southern Poverty Law Center is attempting to end it.  That is what a cease and desist letter is all about.

Public Advocate could soon be facing a serious legal battle for supposed “hate crimes” against the Homosexual Lobby.

The particular cease and desist letter is about intellectual property rights, not hate crimes.  Mr. Delgaudio is, again, imagining future scenarios.  (He is a liar).

My lawyers have warned me not to go into anymore details, but I can assure you this:

As long as I am able, I will continue to fight for the Family.

That is to say, he is going to continue to fight against my family, against the family of Brian Edwards and Tom Privitere, and against all other LGBTQ families.  The supposed warning from his attorneys does not make sense.  Any reasonable attorney would simply tell him to stop using the copyrighted material.

I will send you more information once I receive their letter and my legal team has a chance to review it.

He received it by e-mail before he sent his letter to everyone on his mailing list, begging for more money.

Your public advocate,

Eugene Delgaudio
President, Public Advocate of the United States

P.S. Please prayerfully consider chipping in with a donation of $10 or more to help Public Advocate fight for traditional values.

Sorry to remove the link where he begs for money.  That is Mr. Delgaudio's obvious goal.

Because Public Advocate of the U.S. is a non-profit, charitable organization that fights the radical agenda of the homosexual Lobby, contributions are not tax deductible for IRS purposes. This email was not produced or emailed at taxpayer expense. Public Advocate's phone number is (703) 845-1808, its address is 5613 Leesburg Pike, Suite 17 Falls Church, VA 22041, and its website is http://publicadvocateusa.org/.

It is obnoxious that his hate is not taxed.

19 December 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.
11 January 2012, FollowUp 1.
14 January 2012, FollowUp 2.
16 February 2012, FollowUp 3.
15 March 2012, FollowUp 4.
13 June 2012, FollowUp 5.

FollowUp 5: Eugene Delgaudio Lies About Legislation Again

Some,

The Homosexual Lobby is ready to launch their next major push to seize control of the Republican Party:

Oh my. The dreaded "Homosexual Lobby". The catch is, there is no organized homosexual lobby. Yes, there are groups like the Human Rights Campaign and the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, but no lobby in the sense that Mr. Delgaudio means.

A "conservative" Super PAC to buy Republican legislators.

The Homosexual Lobby has been infiltrating the once-conservative party for years.

New sham groups like GOProud and Log Cabin Republicans have tried to convince Republican legislators that it is okay to be conservative and pro-radical homosexualism.

Now this is funny. Many in the LGBTQ Community have been at odds with the Log Cabin Republicans and more recently GOProud for a long time. Since the Republican Party has had denial of equality to the LGBTQ Community as a Platform Plank for years, there are many who think that these folks should not endeavor to be in bed with the enemy. Their response is that if we do not engage the GOP, joining and attempting to influence them, then we will never make inroads and eventually achieve equality.

Still, aside from the gay squabbles, GOProud and the Log Cabin Republicans are fairly small organizations. Mr. Delgaudio is correct that they have been members of the Republicans (infiltrating) for years. But they cannot have been both doing so for years and be new groups. He has to choose one or the other. While many liberal gays think they are sham, the members of those two organizations are real and are quite serious about what they are doing.

And they’re doing it with their swollen bank accounts.

It’s no secret that the Homosexual Lobby has access to more funding than the pro-Family Movement.

Vast amounts more.

This exaggeration is because Mr. Delgaudio is referring to himself and his donors as if they are the entire so-called "pro-Family Movement". That the National Organization for Marriage has tens of millions of dollars in annual donations, including from the presumed Republican presidential nominee, does not count in Mr. Delgaudio's tallies. Neither do the resources of the Family Research Council, the American Family Association, and their allies like the Witherspoon Institute.

And last summer, it was this unlimited funding that persuaded four NY state senators to betray the voters who elected them by voting for homosexual “marriage.”

So, according to Mr. Delgaudio none of these four Republican state senators had a thought about being fair to all of their constituents as they claimed. The gay lobby bought and paid for these state senators just like the National Organization for Marriage has pledged hundreds of thousands of dollars to those who would oppose them in the next election. But, money dedicated to bigotry is okay while money dedicated to equality is evil.

And the man who played an instrumental role in New York is leading this newest push.

Paul Singer is a billionaire who claims to be conservative, but he is fighting with his vast fortunes to institute homosexual “marriage” across this nation.

I don't know Mr. Singer so I can't speak to his individual politics other than to note that he does indeed appear to be pushing for equality among Republicans. What I do know is that there is more than one kind of conservatism. I am a fiscal conservative (albeit not one who screams socialism at any hint of new spending, just a citizen who appreciates a frugal government). Mr. Delgaudio is a "social conservative". These are hardly the same.

As part of the fight in New York last summer, Singer was responsible for more than $11 million being spent to push homosexual “marriage” through.

He openly gave each of the four Republican traitors a quarter of a million dollars for their vote!

If that were true then Mr. Singer and all four state senators would be in a state prison. I am certainly willing to believe that Mr. Singer donated generously to each of the four. But buying votes is illegal; I'm told it is still illegal even in New York.

And now he wants to repeat this strategy in the more than 30 states which outlaw homosexual “marriage.”

Singer has created a new radical pro-homosexual Super PAC specifically to infiltrate the Republican Party.

His “American Unity PAC” has only one purpose: Find conservative politicians who are weak on moral issues -- or just desperate for money -- and buy their votes.

Well, if one goes to the American Unity PAC webpage, there is only a Facebook link. Really. There is nothing there.

Slate Magazine ran a short article on this a few days ago. It does appear that Mr. Singer's goal is to sway Republicans to marriage equality.

Hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer is one of the country’s most important Republican donors. The 67-year-old is also a big supporter of gay rights, giving more than $10 million of his own money to equal rights causes across the country. Now Singer tells the New York Times’ Frank Bruni that he, along with some like-minded Republicans, will be putting forward $1 million to launch a new super PAC with the sole mission of encouraging GOP candidates to back marriage equality.

Back to the letter from Eugene Delgaudio.

Singer provided $1 million out of his own pocket to start this up, but he won’t stop there.

He is guaranteeing politicians that if they support homosexual “marriage,” he will keep the money flowing.  It won’t matter if their own constituents reject them, Singer and his Super PAC will make the traitors rich.

The word traitors is entirely wrong and to be expected of Mr. Delgaudio. Supporting equality for all of one's constituents is far from being a traitor. It is being a small-c conservative. Perhaps a dictionary would help Mr. Delgaudio with that word (eleven meanings given at the link).

It is no coincidence that they announced the new radical Super PAC when they did.

Only weeks ago I had the pleasure of announcing that Public Advocate and its supporters were able to drive Sen. James Alesi from office.

Isn't it interesting that the National Organization for Marriage made the same pronouncement ... that they had driven Mr. Alesi from office.

Mr. Alesi was one of the four Republican traitors who received slush funds from Paul Singer.

But you and I still got to him.

And the pro-Homosexual “conservatives” realized that they would have to do even more to weather the pro-Family storm of fury.

So they are going to spend even more money than ever before to buy the Republican Party -- to add the Homosexual Agenda to the conservative platform.

Let's be realistic for a moment. Given that Willard "Mitt" Romney has donated to the National Organization for Marriage and signed a pledge to pass a Constitutional Amendment from the Family Leader or from the National Organization for Marriage to keep the LGBTQ Community as second class citizens. Given that the second and third and fourth place contenders for the Republican nomination, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich and Ron Raul*, signed the same pledge. There is zero chance that the GOP Party Platform will be modified to include equality for all.

* I should note that Dr. Paul did not really sign the Marriage Pledge.  He signed the Personhood Amendment Pledge.  When it comes to marriage equality, Ron Paul favors letting each state decide, preferably to maintain the caste system.

My friend, this could be their most dangerous strategy.

You and I saw how they made it work in New York.

The only counter-strategy mainstream Americans have is dedicated grassroots lobbying.

Through phone calls, letters and public campaigns to expose them, you and I can fight back.

Public Advocate is the biggest threat to the Homosexual Agenda... you can be sure that this new Super PAC is going to target us in the near future.

Mr. Delgaudio should make sure that he tells this to Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, and Bryan Brown of the National Organization for Marriage. They each believe that they are the biggest threat.

For the Family,

Eugene Delgaudio
President, Public Advocate of the United States

And, of course, by "the Family" Mr. Delgaudio does not include my family. It is only families that meet a narrow definition of opposite gender spouses.

The letter was interesting in that it clearly demonstrates that Mr. Delgaudio, and likely many others among his fellow bigots, are scared of the impact that Paul Singer might have.  In the short run, Mr. Delgaudio's letter goes on to a post script in which he begs for money as he always does.  In the long run, equality will likely be the rule as it was for Blacks and for women.  Perhaps Mr. Singer is tightening that timeline.

19 December 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.
11 January 2012, FollowUp 1.
14 January 2012, FollowUp 2.
16 February 2012, FollowUp 3.
15 March 2012, FollowUp 4.


12 July 2012, FollowUp 6.

Praise: EEOC on Transgender Discrimination

Around 20 April 2012, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) ruled that transgender discrimination is sex discrimination.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently issued a decision stating that discrimination based on transgender status or gender identity constitutes sex discrimination under Title VII.  The decision allows transgendered individuals to file workplace discrimination charges with the EEOC.

Joanna Grossman provides an excellent analysis at Justia.  In part, she wrote

In a recent adjudication, the EEOC concluded that discrimination against a transgendered individual is sex discrimination.  To many readers, this conclusion may seem obvious, but in fact, most courts that have considered the anti-discrimination rights of transgendered employees have taken a narrower approach.

Under that narrower approach, transgender discrimination is only actionable if the employer acted on sex stereotypes to punish gender non-conformity.  But the EEOC takes the position that any sort of transgender discrimination is sex discrimination, because it inherently involves taking gender—and therefore sex—into account.  This is true even if the employer takes an action that simply reflects animus against transgender individuals or a desire to exclude them from the workplace, rather than a concern, specifically, about gender non-conformity.

In her article, Ms. Grossman gives a good description of the case.

The case that led the EEOC to reach its result is that of Mia Macy, a transgender woman who worked as a police detective in Phoenix.  In 2010, she relocated to San Francisco and began seeking employment.  At the time of the move, Mia was still presenting as a man, but had plans to transition to a female identity.  Her supervisor in Phoenix told her that the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives had an opening for a ballistics expert in a crime laboratory near San Francisco, for which she was well-qualified.

Macy spoke with the Director in that office by telephone around January 2011 about her credentials for the position, as well as the position’s salary and benefits.  According to Macy, the Director told Macy that she would get the position so long as no problems were identified in her background check, and that the position would be filled via a staffing firm, Aspen of DC.  After that initial conversation, there were a variety of back-and-forths among Macy, the Director, and Aspen, during which time her background check was underway.

On March 29, 2011, Macy informed Aspen via e-mail that she was in the process of transitioning from male to female and asked Aspen to share this information with the Director.  On April 3, Aspen informed Macy that the information about her gender transition had been passed along to the Director.  Five days later, Macy received an e-mail from the staffing firm stating that, due to federal budget reductions, the position in the ATF lab was no longer available.

On May 10, 2011, Macy contacted an EEO counselor within the federal government to discuss her concerns.  The counselor revealed that, in fact, the lab had not cut the position, but instead had filled it with someone else.

On June 13, 2011, Macy filed a formal discrimination complaint with the federal agency at issue, ATF.  On a preprinted form, she checked off “sex” and “female,” and typed in “gender identity” and “sex stereotyping” as the basis for the complaint.  In a narrative portion of the form, she wrote that she was not hired on the basis of “my sex, gender identity (transgender woman) and on the basis of sex stereotyping.”

So this discrimination is complicated with lies and an apparent attempt to bury the discrimination in time and paperwork.  Not a big surprise, but still disappointing in the twenty-first century.  Also not a surprise is backlash from the usual bigots.  Fox News quotes one notorious hater.

Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies at the Washington-based Family Research Council, said the EEOC's decision is misinterpreting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

"Those who are discriminated against because they are transgender are not discriminated because they are male or female, it is because they are pretending to be the opposite of what they really are, which is quite a different matter," he said.

Mr. Sprigg is, no surprise at all, wrong when he characterizes those who are transgender as "pretending to be the opposite of what they really are."  To understand what transgender people are, let's look at the glossary of the 2011 edition of Transgender Standards of Care.

Transgender: Adjective to describe a diverse group of individuals who cross or transcend culturally defined categories of gender. The gender identity of transgender people differs to varying degrees from the sex they were assigned at birth (Bockting, 1999).

There is nothing about pretending in this description.  One's identity is not what one pretends to be but who one intrinsically is.  If the discussion was of actors, then Mr. Sprigg would have a valid point.  It is not.

And we also have a response from prolific liar Eugene Delgaudio, via e-mail.

A major plank in the Gay Bill of Special Rights has just been enacted by Federal bureaucratic decree!

That’s right -- the Homosexual Lobby has found a way around the Constitution and the U.S. Congress to give special employments privileges to transsexuals.

Just a few days ago, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) decided to redefine the rules already on the books to make it nearly impossible for any employers to ever turn down or fire a transsexual person.

Of course there is no "Gay Bill of Special Rights" and there are no "special employments privileges to transsexuals" and it is not "nearly impossible for any employers to ever turn down or fire a transsexual person."

In particular, someone who is transgender (what Mr. Delgaudio calls transsexual) can be fired for cause.  Being transgender is not cause.

The EEOC has taken an important step.  While no one is ever guaranteed employment, who one is should not be a deciding factor.  On the home page for the EEOC, the categories for discrimination are:

• Discrimination by Type
  • Age
  • Disability
  • Equal Compensation
  • Genetic Information
  • National Origin
  • Pregnancy
  • Race/Color
  • Religion
  • Retaliation
  • Sex
  • Sexual Harassment

Still missing is protection by the EEOC from discrimination because of sexual orientation.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) does not enforce laws that prohibit discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation, status as a parent, marital status and political affiliation. However, other federal agencies and many states and municipalities do.

Organizations like Mr. Sprigg's Family Research Council and Mr. Delgaudio's Public Advocate are working on the federal, state, and local levels against laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.  It is important that we raise all American citizens to first class status by barring such discrimination.

Repudiation: Republican Opposition to the Violence Against Women Act

Yet another annoying rant by Eugene Delgaudio caught my attention. Sometimes (rarely) he is almost correct.

Some,

I need you to forward this to as many friends as you can.

We don’t have much time to act and it will take the support of every possible pro-Family American if we are going to make a difference.

You see, right now the U.S. Senate is debating the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) -- but with pro-homosexual amendments.

The Radical Homosexual Lobby wants to create a special law for homosexuals and transgendered using VAWA as cover.

Okay, let's stop here for a moment.  The Senate Bill to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 has sixty co-sponsors and is being considered by the Senate.  I have tried searching through the three hundred and eighty-eight pages of the reauthorization for gay, lesbian, homo, and sexuality and there are zero matches for each of these.  Expanding my earlier search to include all instances of trans did have matches.  The matches were for transitional housing, transportation, and transfer from one home or shelter to another.  I finally got somewhere will a search for gender.

The answer begins on page 199 of the bill:

3 ‘‘(39) UNDERSERVED POPULATIONS.—The term
4 ‘underserved populations’ means populations who face
5 barriers in accessing and using victim services, and
6 includes populations underserved because of geo-
7 graphic location, religion, sexual orientation, gender
8 identity, underserved racial and ethnic populations,
9 populations underserved because of special needs (such
10 as language barriers, disabilities, alienage status, or
11 age), and any other population determined to be un-
12 derserved by the Attorney General or by the Secretary
13 of Health and Human Services, as appropriate.’’;

So the definition of who may be protected from violence in the Violence Against Women Act is being expanded.  It does not seem to me that protection against violence is "pro-homosexual" as much as pro-human.

In reality this altered VAWA is just a back-door attempt to create a special class of federally-protected citizens.

An excellent idea, but it just isn't true.  Federal protections are a legal designation that is not included in this legislation.  Further, since the reauthorization includes illegal aliens, it is not only about citizens.  It is about protecting human beings from domestic and sexual abuse.

Something closer to Mr. Delgaudio's concerns can be found on pages 205 and 206.

13 ‘‘(13) CIVIL RIGHTS.—
14 ‘‘(A) NONDISCRIMINATION.—No person in
15 the United States shall, on the basis of actual or
16 perceived race, color, religion, national origin,
17 sex, gender identity (as defined in paragraph
18 249(c)(4) of title 18, United States Code), sexual
19 orientation, or disability, be excluded from par-
20 ticipation in, be denied the benefits of, or be sub-
21 jected to discrimination under any program or
22 activity funded in whole or in part with funds
23 made available under the Violence Against
24 Women Act of 1994 (title IV of Public Law 103–
25 322; 108 Stat. 1902), the Violence Against

1 Women Act of 2000 (division B of Public Law
2 106–386; 114 Stat. 1491), the Violence Against
3 Women and Department of Justice Reauthoriza-
4 tion Act of 2005 (title IX of Public Law 109–
5 162; 119 Stat. 3080), the Violence Against
6 Women Reauthorization Act of 2011, and any
7 other program or activity funded in whole or in
8 part with funds appropriated for grants, cooper-
9 ative agreements, and other assistance adminis-
10 tered by the Office on Violence Against Women.

Unlike Mr. Delgaudio's allegation, the nondiscrimination designation for gender identity and sexual orientation is limited to programs funded by the Violence Against Women Act.  There is no change outside of it.

An excellent explanation can be found in an article in the Washington Post.

Enacted in 1994, VAWA has twice been reauthorized by Congress with unanimous Senate support. This year Senate Republicans opposed the bill in the Judiciary Committee because of provisions that extend protections to gays, lesbians, transgendered people, Native Americans and battered immigrant women. They essentially accused Democrats of using the cloak of battered women to force approval on what they see as controversial social issues. “Maybe then they could accuse you of not being supportive of fighting violence against women?” Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) told the New York Times. Mr. Sessions and other Republicans on the committee voted for an alternative version that they characterized as a clean reauthorization without unnecessarily political provisions.

A comprehensive committee report convincingly details gaps in current programs as identified by law enforcement officers, victim-service providers, judges and health-care professions. No one — gay or straight, man or woman, legal or undocumented — should be denied protections against domestic abuse or sexual violence. The proposed changes are by no means radical. They include a provision that would bar a shelter from turning away a lesbian who has been beaten by her female partner and adjustments in funding formulas to better address the needs of male victims of domestic and sexual violence.

Some changes, such as increasing the number of temporary visas for battered immigrant women, are supported by law enforcement. And the need to do more to protect Native American women is supported by a regional survey by University of Oklahoma researchers that showed that three out of five Native American women had been assaulted by their spouses or partners and a nationwide survey that found that one-third of all Native American women will be raped in their lifetime.

It will be good to reach a time when such legislation is not needed.  But we do have groups of people, most notably women, who have not received adequate protection when attacked.  The Violence Against Women Act is needed for them and other groups who are correctly identified in the proposed reauthorization.

According to the Hill, the Democrats and Republicans might reach some consensus, although it might be for a short term bill instead of something that would stand for several years.  Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson introduced an alternative reauthorization yesterday.  The Republican alternative is not likely to get far.

Links to my repudiations of Eugene Delgaudio and his lies about various legislation:
19 December 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.
11 January 2012, FollowUp 1.
14 January 2012, FollowUp 2.
16 February 2012, FollowUp 3.
15 March 2012, FollowUp 4.

FollowUp 4: Eugene Delgaudio Lies About Legislation Again

The delusional self-proclaimed Public Advocate of the United States wrote again today with more claims regarding supposed legislation.  The way Mr. Delgaudio begs for money is certainly performance art of a sort, but it is a sordid act.

Dear Some,

It's hard to write you this.

My office is in trouble.  And I need your help.

I have been working overtime fighting against the radical Homosexual Lobby.

Today, I'm worried.

Despite passing Thought Control and repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the radical Homosexual Lobby is drooling for more this year in Congress.

Thought control??!?  Really?  There is no such thing as thought control.  My best guess is that Mr. Delgaudio is referring to hate crimes legislation.  Perhaps he would be happier in a new tinfoil hat (very silly site that you otter go see).

And with this Congress, they have adopted new tactics.

I see well-known agents of the radical Homosexual Lobby everywhere. They are huddled in dark corners scheming and plotting.  They meet secretly with members of Congress in hopes of tempting them to advance their perverse agenda with campaign cash and the promise of votes.

A little paranoid?

This, in spite of the fact that we've defeated a major portion of the Homosexual Lobby's perverse agenda in the past .

Together, we held off the Gay Bill of Special Rights in 2011, and cut off the efforts of pro-homosexual Obama White House, but we had to spend everything to do it.

As we saw previously, Mr. Delgaudio is paying himself over one hundred and seventy thousand dollars a year from the donations he receives.  He is lining his purse very nicely as he had to "spend everything to do it."

There is not now and there never has been a "Gay Bill of Special Rights."  The LGBTQ Community continues to push for equal rights.  We want nothing more and nothing less than everyone else.  It is called equality, nothing special.

The Homosexual Lobby knows this, and it knows as well as you or me that if we can't finance ourselves, we won't be able to stand up to them in the future.

We haven't seen the last of the Gay Bill of Special Rights either.  Mark my words.

And the new year brings greater threats than ever before -- I am in trouble...

This is a painful email for me to write.

For the first time ever, I feel as if my pro-family supporters are letting me down.

Translation:  Mr. Delgaudio fears that he won't rake in as much money for his own "pay" this year as he did last year.  Money, money, money.

I have prayed about this matter.  I am sure that I am doing what is right .

It is our duty as decent God-believing adults to fight against the tyranny and immorality of the radical Homosexual Lobby.  But many good Christian supporters aren't coming through.

Tyrrany?  That is the domain of a majority that is able to inflict its will on a minority.  It is immoral to deny equality to all citizens.  Perhaps in these tight financial times, Mr. Delgaudio might have to do real work for a living, instead of simply accepting money for spreading hate.

It seems a lot of people believe all our problems are solved because we have a Republican Majority in the House.  And many pro-family leaders are complacent or just plain worn out, and they want to quit.

Somehow, listening to the GOP presidential contenders, I don't think that Republicans are complacent.  Certainly there are a lot of hate groups making a lot of noise that is better documented today.  Somehow Mr. Delgaudio has not yet made it onto the Southern Poverty Law Center's hate group listing, although he did earn two paragraphs at the conclusion of one of their intelligence reports.

I cannot believe it!  That'd be like surrendering after Pearl Harbor!

And after the holidays, many of my best supporters haven't been able to help like they used to...

In fact, money is so tight here that I have had to scale back important pro-family campaigns.

Since Mr. Delgaudio's "campaigns" appear to be limited to mass e-mails and rarely printing out copies of his hate to hand deliver in Washington, D.C. (he lives nearby), this shouldn't be too much scaling back.  We could hope for more.

Critical petition drives, grassroots lobbying campaigns, and citizen outreach programs may be closed down.

And as the radical homosexuals have gained almost complete control in Congress, my hands are tied...

Heaven forbid that Mr. Delgaudio cut back on his six figure salary from his hate campaign.

At times, life here in Washington has been a virtual hell for me...

I will not forget the past.

I've faced the blinding hatred of the Radical Homosexuals.

Gee, why would people who you work to keep in a lower caste possibly come to hate you?

Radical homosexuals have distributed hate flyers giving out my address and telephone number and urging sick and disgusting calls by homosexuals to harass my family.

Newspapers even print this "Hate the Delgaudio Family" material.

Doing a search on news.google.com for that exact phrase, since Mr. Delgaudio put it in quotes it must be exact, comes up with zero.  If a newspaper did print that, they did not include it in their online edition.  Or, Mr. Delgaudio is forgetting that he claims to be a "good Christian" and he is bearing false witness ... again.

I've received "crank" phone calls... even death threats!

Doing a search for Delgaudio death threat also came up with zero.  Remove the word death and the only news article that comes up is from a week ago, where Mr. Delgaudio is reported to have opposed drug rehabilitation programs as part of his job on the Loundoun Board of Supervisors.  He is quoted as saying, "I need that money for the people who are doing well in life."  This is despite the fact that the rehabilitation programs would have saved taxpayer dollars according to the article.

With his six figure income from his "work" as the so-called Public Advocate, he must need money for people like himself.  The term greedy seems appropriate.

Years ago, after a man in a black car was caught taking photographs of my children, I had to call in police protection for them.

One time a dead dog was left in my yard.  What kind of people would do this?

I was once even forced to send Sheila and the children into hiding for a short time .

They are safe now... There is no precaution that I will not take to protect my wife and precious children.

Some in the news media routinely promote or allow printed attacks on my wife, my children or me.

Sorry, but I don't believe any of this.  Mr. Delgaudio either never reported these assaults to the news media or they didn't happen.  In terms of attacks, those are missing as well.  There are rare responses, one of which I recently wrote about, but the purpose has been a response to Mr. Delgaudio's rants, never a threat of attack on him or his family.

Sometimes, I am afraid that without your support, I too will be forced to give in to the Radical Homosexual Lobby and stop fighting against their perverted agenda.

That's why I need to ask you today to seriously consider making an emergency contribution to Public Advocate.  Even a donation of $20 or $40 would make a huge difference.

Sorry, but I removed this link.  Mr. Delgaudio's begging does not need to be rewarded.  If that is your inclination, go to his website and do so, it is the first link in this blog post.

My friend, I am tired.

My health is suffering under the strain of fighting the Radical Homosexual Lobby with limited help.  I can't eat, I can't sleep and I am sick with worry.

Many nights I stay up and worry -- worry about my family, worry about Public Advocate's future, worry about the future of the American Family and morality.

Somehow he doesn't seem to be worried about the morality of fleecing his donors.

I have fought on, but I desperately need your help right now. Please don't let me down.

Last year's fights have put my office tens of thousands of dollars over budget.

Every day, it seems, it gets harder and harder to raise the money to keep our campaigns going .

I'm expected to expand programs to stop liberals in Congress from allowing homosexuals to run rampant over our country...

The Gay Bill of Special Rights is at the top of the agenda for pro-homosexual congressmen this year.

Last time the Gay Bill of Special Rights came up, only an outpouring of support by members like you allowed us to stall the vote in the House and buy us the time we needed to rally our troops.

If this immoral bill passes, it will mean pro-homosexual hiring quotas in workplaces throughout the nation.  It will also make it nearly impossible for employers to deal with unsatisfactory employees who are radical homosexuals.

No.  This is a bald-faced lie.  There has NEVER been legislation proposed that included a hiring quota for homosexuals.  Never written up as legislation.  Never proposed.  Mr. Delgaudio is back to bearing false witness.

Lesbians and gays want the same rights as straights.  We want to not be fired without cause.  That cause should not be our sexuality, but our work performance.  This is called equality.  No special rights, equal rights.  How radical a person's politics are away from work should not affect their employment performance review and retention or firing.  (There are some exceptions for employees who work with the public and who should not have their politics on display ... such as public school teachers.  But it should still be equal rules without regard to sexuality).

President Barack Obama has vowed to use his power to pass pro-homosexual legislation before it's too late.

The only other significant "pro-homosexual legislation" is the Respect for Marriage Act.  That legislation, which would effectively repeal DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act), will not be considered in the House of Representatives this session.

And the attitude of the Oval Office is only likely to get worse as President Barack Obama seeks new ways to appease his radical homosexual allies ahead of his re-election.

There is no chance of Presidential opposition.  We need to stop the Gay Bill of Special Rights ourselves, now!

There is no chance of equality legislation passing the House while John Boehner is Speaker.  This is a set up for more begging for money (I've removed the link again).

Please Click Here to chip in.

The letter goes on and one.  Rather than quote every line.  Let's jump ahead to the next outrageous claim.

These people admit that they want to molest our children.  They admit that they want special rights that no American has.  They admit that they want to infiltrate and weaken our military's moral fiber.  They admit that they want complete control over the national law enforcement apparatus.  They admit that they're deviants.

No, no, no, no, and no.  Five significant lies in just one paragraph.

I've never met a homosexual who wants to molest children.  Those people are called pedophiles and every homosexual I know objects to them as much as every heterosexual I know.  There was a magazine article last year where some idiot wrote, "Yes, we want to molest your children." as satire.  Equally stupid people like Mr. Delgaudio picked that up as if it were gospel truth.  It is not.  I work with teenagers and know that however cute their bodies might be, they are immature brats who need to grow up before they become interesting as potential partners.  For the record, I'm not interested in potential partners, preferring to stay with the same man who I have been with since 2005. 

Homosexuals want equal rights, not special rights.  Right now heterosexuals enjoy special rights that homosexuals do not have.  The caste system should end.

I served in the United States Navy before Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT).  Gays and lesbians have served in the military for a long time.  We serve to protect and strengthen our country.  Now we can serve without keeping secrets that might hamper unit effectiveness.

I have no idea where the "complete control over the national law enforcement apparatus" comes from.  Is this a reference to hate crimes laws?  Is this a decade-late complaint about the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas?  Perhaps Mr. Delgaudio is being a bit more delusional than usual.

Homosexuality is on the normal and natural spectrum of animal and human behavior.  It is not a deviancy other from Mr. Delgaudio's narrow definitions.

And just as Jesus showed us by example and could not have stood back and done nothing at the Temple, I couldn't stand back and do nothing in the face of the growing power of the radical Homosexual Agenda.

Following Mr. Delgaudio's analogy, he is much closer to running the Temple than to Jesus.  Perhaps he should study his Bible a little more carefully.  Jesus was the radical according to the Christian gospels.

I absolutely must raise $132,945.23 in the next 25 days to pay past bills and keep programs going.

Still less than halfway through the e-mail.  It is repetitious and annoying.  There are some darker references further along that I won't dignify with printing here.  Too ugly.  Too many lies.  Mr. Delgaudio appears to always choose the wrong answer to the popular question, "What would Jesus do?"

19 December 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.

11 January 2012, FollowUp 1.
14 January 2012, FollowUp 2.
16 February 2012, FollowUp 3.

13 June 2012, FollowUp 5.
12 July 2012, FollowUp 6.