Pat Robertson Threatens Legal Action Against Filmmakers Exposing Charity Scam

Hampton Roads' own mega local embarrassment, Pat Robertson is making news again.  This time, however, it's not because of his latest insane batshit crazy remarks but instead because his is threatening film makers who did an expose on Robertson's alleged charity, Operation Blessing, that would indicate that the charity has skimmed off large amounts of money and diverted the funds to Robertson's diamond mining operations.  In my opinion, the only god Robertson has ever really worshiped is money.  The trappings of religiosity have in my view always merely served as a means Robertson uses to fleece the ignorant and gullible.  The Guardian looks at the film and Robertson's reported lies misrepresentations.  Here are excerpts:

One of the stranger sights of the refugee crisis that followed the 1994 Rwandan genocide was of stretcher-bearers rushing the dying to medical tents, with men running alongside reciting Bible verses to the withering patients.

The bulk of the thousands of doctors and nurses struggling to save lives – as about 40,000 people died of cholera – were volunteers for the international medical charity Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF). The Bible readers were hired by the American televangelist and former religious right presidential candidate, Pat Robertson, and his aid organisation, Operation Blessing International.

But on Robertson's US television station, the Christian Broadcasting Network, that reality was reversed, as he raised millions of dollars from loyal followers by claiming Operation Blessing was at the forefront of the international response to the biggest refugee crisis of the decade. It's a claim he continues to make, even though an official investigation into Robertson's operation in Virginia accused him of "fraudulent and deceptive" claims when he was running an almost non-existent aid operation.

"We brought the largest contingent of medicine into Goma in Zaire, at least the first and the largest," Robertson said as recently as last year on his TV station.

Now a new documentary lays bare the extent of the misrepresentations of Operation Blessing's activities in the Democratic Republic of Congo, formerly Zaire, that it says continue to this day.
Mission Congo, by David Turner and Lara Zizic, opens at the Toronto film festival on Friday. It describes how claims about the scale of aid to Rwandan refugees were among a number of exaggerated or false assertions about the activities of Operation Blessing which pulls in hundreds of millions of dollars a year in donations, much of it through Robertson's televangelism. They include characterising a failed large-scale farming project as a huge success, and claims about providing schools and other infrastructure.

But some of the most damaging criticism of Robertson comes from former aid workers at Operation Blessing, who describe how mercy flights to save refugees were diverted hundreds of miles from the crisis to deliver equipment to a diamond mining concession run by the televangelist.

Robertson claimed that Operation Blessing sent plane-loads of doctors. . . . . But the film was of MSF medical staff at work. Operation Blessing had just one tent and a total of seven doctors. MSF officials who worked in Goma told the documentary-makers that they had no recollection of even seeing Operation Blessing – let alone working with it.

The documentary describes how dredges, used to suck up diamonds from river beds, were delivered hundreds of miles from the crisis in Goma to a private commercial firm, African Development Company, registered in Bermuda and wholly owned by Robertson. ADC held a mining concession near the town of Kamonia on the far side of the country.

"Mission after mission was always just getting eight-inch dredgers, six-inch dredgers … and food supplies, quads, jeeps, out to the diamond dredging operation outside of Kamonia," Hinkle told the film-makers.

Right Wing Watch looks at Robertson's spittle flecked threats of legal action against the filmmakers. Here are highlights:

Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network is already weighing legal action against two filmmakers over their documentary depicting the televangelist’s egregious misrepresentations of the activities of his charity, Operation Blessing.

 An Operation Blessing spokesman told The Virginian-Pilot that they are “considering legal action” against Lara Zizic and David Turner, whose film “Mission Congo” will hold its premier at the Toronto International Film Festival, over the film’s supposed “false and defamatory” content.

CBN has a history of going after Robertson’s critics; for example, they recently embarked on an unsuccessful push to cover up a video of Robertson — first posted here on Right Wing Watch —arguing that gay men wear special rings that they use to infect random people they meet with HIV/AIDS.

Robertson should remember that truth is an absolute defense to claims of libel and slander.  The last thing he should want is for the filmmakers prove the truth of their allegations in a court of law.  Moreover, if litigation ensues, the defendants could use discovery to force Robertson to turn over documents and information.  

 

Churches Seeking Special Rights

The Christofascists are always claiming that LGBT Americans are seeking "special rights."  Truth be told, it's the not the gays that want special rights.  No, its the Christofascists who want to be free to ignore the IRS restrictions against political activities by charities as conservative churches and some denominations become de facto arms of the Republican Party.  The justification for restrictions that apply to all other charities?  The increasingly used and disingenuous ruse that such restrictions impinge on "religious freedom" and "free speech."  The real story is that these churches and Christofascists want special rights and they want all taxpayers to indirectly underwrite their political activities.  Even when those political activities attack and demonize those being forced to underwrite them via the tax-exemption for 501(c)(3) charities.  It's complete hypocrisy, but then what's more synonymous these days than with hypocrisy than conservative Christianity?  An piece in The New Republic looks at the effort by these churches to defy the law through “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” and then demolishes their lies and false defense of their illegal actions.  Here are highlights:

On Sunday, October 7, pastors around the country will try to bait the federal government into investigating them by preaching explicitly partisan sermons. As part of a conservative movement organizers call “Pulpit Freedom Sunday,” some religious leaders will endorse Mitt Romney from the pulpit. Others may refrain from an endorsement but vigorously criticize President Obama. And some will tell their congregations that a good Christian can only vote for a candidate who opposes gay marriage and abortion. Then they’ll send tapes of their sermons to the Internal Revenue Service in the hopes of being audited.

Supporters of Pulpit Freedom Sunday argue that current law violates religious liberty and free speech by placing restrictions on what religious leaders can say.

Let’s consider this claim. In order to believe that churches are being censored by the government, you have to accept that religious organizations have not only the right to engage in partisan speech and activities but also the right to be exempt from federal taxes and the right to accept donations that are tax-deductible. There simply is no constitutional right that covers the latter. The tax-exempt status for churches is a monetary benefit given to them by the government, as is the rule allowing individuals to deduct their contributions to religious organizations.

It’s quite simple. If a church wants to endorse a candidate and engage in campaign activities, there are absolutely no restrictions preventing it from doing so. But it must pay federal taxes, and its donors cannot deduct their contributions. Additionally, a pastor can preach about same-sex marriage or immigration reform or abortion or economic justice. But he cannot tell parishioners that they must support a particular candidate because of their views on one of those issues. The churches involved in Pulpit Sunday want to have it both ways. They want to use tax-deductible donations to participate in campaigns, and no doubt there are plenty of political donors who would prefer to deduct their political contributions by sending them through religious organizations.

Religious leaders have long been active in political movements—and partisan campaigns—but Americans are growing less tolerant of that intermingling of the religious and the political. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has found that more Americans now oppose church involvement in politics than support it, a shift from 15 years ago.  

The willingness—and indeed eagerness—of many conservative pastors and priests to flout the law by endorsing Romney may not swing the election in the Republican’s favor. And a court challenge of the law under a potential second Obama term might just devolve into yet another culture war charge that Democratic administrations and activist judges are restricting the rights of religious Americans. But there must be some alternative to the status quo, in which select religious organizations enthusiastically engage in government-subsidized campaigning while happily claiming their tax exemption.

Yes, these Christofascists are liars and hypocrites.  As I've noted before, they believe that their rights trump the rights of all others and that they are indeed above the law.  I think it is far beyond time that all politically active churches lose their tax exempt status.  They are free to say whatever they want, but the rest of us should not be forced to help underwrite their hate and venom.  The concept of a "charity" includes the expectation that the entities activities promote the general well being of all citizens and society as a whole.  Most conservative churches ceased performing this function decades ago, if they ever did it at all.

On Our Radar – The Romney Millions And The Damage They Have Done

Mitt and Ann Romney are almost boastful about the money they have given to the Mormon Church - the same Church that owns commercial properties and other investments that seem to be focused on things other than feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and giving shelter to to the homeless.  As a former Catholic, I don't mean to single out the Mormon Church for abuse.  The sad reality is that most of institutional religion - be it Catholic Mormon or something else - over the centuries has utterly forgotten the Gospel message and instead has focused almost exclusively on amassing wealth,  power and control over the lives of others.  Oh, and there's that little thing called Proposition 8 - legalized bigotry and the infusion of religious belief into the civil laws that Mitt Romney's Mormon Church spearheaded.  Thus, in my book, boasting about the money one has given to a bigoted institution which seeks to subvert the separation of church and state written into the United States Constitution isn't a positive.  In fact, it's a huge negative.  If Mitt ans Ann Romney were truly concerned about charitable works, they would have made directly to orphanages, medical facilities, soup kitchens, etc. Jean Ann Esselink has a piece in The New Civil Rights Movement looks at what the Romneys' "charitable giving" has actually helped finance.  Here are excerpts:

Mitt can call me “small-minded,” and tax-obsessed if he must, but I feel compelled to object to his wife’s characterization of their so-called generosity. Tithing to the Mormon Church is not a laudable deed for which Mitt and Ann Romney should be praised or admired. In fact, I think it should disqualify Governor Romney from holding national office.

This week Queen Ann shook her finger in our faces while she scolded us like naughty children for asking to see the royal taxes. If you saw her performance, there is a high probability it aroused in you a desire to chomp down on that wagging digit like you were channeling the baby in Lemony Snicket’s. Ann let us know, by royal decree, that they will not be releasing any more tax forms so their enemies can use the information in it against them. Fair enough. But in the very next sentence she insisted we not only take her word they paid their fair share of taxes, but that we also credit them with giving ten percent of their income to the Mormon Church. I am more than happy to ascribe that contribution to them, but “credit” is not a word I would attach to such a gift. I’d go with “blame.”

 For years, Mitt and Ann Romney have contributed ten percent of their mega-earnings to the Mormon Church. The Church then used their contributions to defend DOMA and offer gay reparative therapy, and fund Prop 8. They may want to call it “charity” but Mitt and Ann hurt people; specifically, they hurt gay people. It is important that they not be allowed to hide behind some altruistic notion of the phrase “tithed to my church” like the donation itself is a good thing, regardless of what pain their money caused.

[W]hen you give to a Church or a charity, you decide what you want your money to be used for. Mitt and Ann did not choose to save the houses of foreclosed homeowners or  provide state-of-the-art prosthetic limbs for wounded vets. Mitt and Ann gave willingly to an organization that has dedicated itself to keeping couples of the same sex from marrying, and denying children, like little Nolan and Ryanne and Jacob (image,right,) who will have their right to a two parent family decided by a judge this week, all the protections and benefits marriage bestows.

The Romneys claiming they support the Mormon Church but not its campaign of discrimination, would be like a donor saying he contributed to the KKK’s choir robe fund, but the Klan promised him none of his money would go to buy rope.

I have yet to hear anyone in the news media ask the Romneys if they are bothered by how the Mormons used their money. If someone should dare, I hope they will not accept a generic “I’m for DOMA, one man, one woman.” as a response. Ask what threat a loving couple getting married in California was to their lives in Massachusetts. Pin them down as to why they gave the Mormon Church such staggering sums, knowing they would use it to hurt people who never hurt them.

[P]lease ask Governor Romney how he can possibly be president of ALL Americans when he actively funds the effort to discriminate against millions of them.

Romney: I Paid At Least 13% Tax Rate for Last 10 Years

Even though Ann "Marie Antoinette" Romney sullenly said that no more tax returns would be released by she and her husband, GOP presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, the tax return issue simply refuses to go away.  Now, trying to quell the continued uproar, Mitt "Pinocchio" Romney has stated that he and Marie Antoinette have paid at least a 135 tax rate for each of the last 10 years.  Other than Romney's statement, however, there is nothing to confirm that Romney's not lying.  Given Romney's lack of honesty on when and how he left Bain Capital, taking the man at his word is a risky proposition.  And that's not even addressing the issue that Romney is paying a far lower rate than many struggling members of the middle class.  Here are highlights from a Washington Post piece:

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Thursday that he has paid a federal income tax rate of at least 13 percent in each of the last 10 years, bowing to months of political pressure to disclose more information about his vast personal fortune.

“I did go back and look at my taxes, and over the past 10 years I never paid less than 13 percent. I think the most recent year is 13.6 or something like that. So I paid taxes every single year,” he told reporters here Thursday.

 Romney’s disclosure Thursday came in response to a reporter’s question at a news conference Romney had hoped would focus on a white-board presentation he gave outlining his latest attack on Obama over Medicare. . .  . Romney sounded rankled by the very question, though, saying, “the fascination with taxes I’ve paid I find to be very small-minded compared to the broad issues that we face.”

If the candidate hoped his answer would put the issue to rest, he ended up only inviting more questions. Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt quickly challenged Romney to “prove it.”   “He has the ability to answer all of these questions by releasing several years of tax returns. He simply hasn’t done that,” LaBolt told reporters on a conference call. LaBolt noted that Romney’s father, George, released 12 years of income tax returns when he ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 1968.

In 2011, Obama paid an effective rate of 20.5 percent, according to his tax returns. Americans paid an average tax rate of 17.4 percent in 2009, according to a report from the Congressional Budget Office that was released last month.

In an interview with NBC’s “Rock Center” that aired Thursday, the candidate’s wife said Democrats wants the records for “ammunition.” “The more we get attacked, the more we get questioned, the more we get pushed,” Ann Romney said, adding that the couple has been “very transparent to what’s legally required of us.”

Reid said Romney could prove his statements true by making his records public. “We’ll believe it when we see it,” said the spokesman, Adam Jentleson. “Until Mitt Romney releases his tax returns, Americans will continue to wonder what he’s hiding.”

At his news conference, Romney suggested that his charitable contributions should also be taken into account. “Every year, I’ve paid at least 13 percent, and if you add, in addition, the amount that goes to charity, why the number gets well above 20 percent,” Romney said.

As for Romney's "charitable contributions." giving millions to the Mormon Church which then spends the money on business ventures or supporting discriminatory laws and legislation isn't what I consider a true charitable contribution and illustrates why we need major changes in what is deductible under the tax laws.  We as a nation need to stop subsiding religion, especially denominations that market hate, bigotry and societal discord. 

Bloomberg Businessweek: How the Mormons Make Money

With all of the recent media coverage on Mitt Romney's focus on money - can we say greed? - and secretive financial transactions, the timing of a new Bloomber Businessweek article on how Mormons and the Mormon Church make money is perfect.  The net impression is that Mitt Romney comes by his secrecy and unrelenting focus on making a buck as a matter of religious upbringing.   As the article states, the Mormon Church sees no distinction between spirituality and making money - as much money as possible.  And like Mitt Romney who doesn't miss a chance to avoid paying taxes, the Mormon Church gets a lot of tax sheltering (not to mention competitive advantages against for-profit businesses) for its commercial enterprises via its tax exempt status as a church.  Perhaps it is no coincidence that Mitt Romney was once a Stake President in the LDS church - making him the lay Mormon equivalent of a church figure in charge of a diocese.   Here are some article excerpts:

Late last March the Mormon Church completed an ambitious project: a megamall. Built for roughly $2 billion, the City Creek Center stands directly across the street from the church’s iconic, neo-Gothic temple in Salt Lake City. The mall includes a retractable glass roof, 5,000 underground parking spots, and nearly 100 stores and restaurants, ranging from Tiffany’s (TIF) to Forever 21. Walkways link the open-air emporium with the church’s perfectly manicured headquarters on Temple Square. 

Watching a religious leader celebrate a mall may seem surreal, but City Creek reflects the spirit of enterprise that animates modern-day Mormonism. The mall is part of a vast church-owned corporate empire that the Mormon leadership says will help spread its message, increase economic self-reliance, and build the Kingdom of God on earth. “

 It’s perhaps unsurprising that Mormonism, an indigenous American religion, would also adopt the country’s secular faith in money. What is remarkable is how varied the church’s business interests are—and, at a time when a former Mormon bishop is about to receive the Republican Party’s presidential nomination, that so little is known about the church’s financial interests.

[S]ays historian D. Michael Quinn, who is working on a book about the LDS Church’s finances and businesses, “The Mormon Church is very different than any other church. … Traditional Christianity and Judaism make a clear distinction between what is spiritual and what is temporal, while Mormon theology specifically denies that there is such a distinction.” To Latter-day Saints, opening megamalls, running a Polynesian theme park, and operating a billion-dollar media and insurance empire are all part of doing God’s work. Says Quinn: “In the Mormon worldview, it’s as spiritual to give alms to the poor, as the old phrase goes in the Biblical sense, as it is to make a million dollars.”

Mormons make up only 1.4 percent of the U.S. population, but the church’s holdings are vast. 

First among its for-profit enterprises is DMC, which reaps estimated annual revenues of $1.2 billion from six subsidiaries, according to the business information and analysis firm Hoover’s Company Records (DNB). Those subsidiaries run a newspaper, 11 radio stations, a TV station, a publishing and distribution company, a digital media company, a hospitality business, and an insurance business with assets worth $3.3 billion.

AgReserves, another for-profit Mormon umbrella company, together with other church-run agricultural affiliates, reportedly owns roughly 1 million acres in the continental U.S., on which the church has farms, hunting preserves, orchards, and ranches

As a religious organization, the LDS Church enjoys several tax advantages. Like other churches, it is often exempt from paying taxes on the real estate properties it leases out, even to commercial entities, says tax lawyer David Miller, who is not Mormon. The church also doesn’t pay taxes on donated funds and holdings. Romney and others at Bain Capital, the private-equity firm co-founded by Romney in 1984, gave the Mormon Church millions’ worth of stock holdings obtained through Bain deals, according to Reuters.  

According to U.S. law, religions have no obligation to open their books to the public, and the LDS Church officially stopped reporting any finances in the early 1960s. In 1997 an investigation by Time used cross-religious comparisons and internal information to estimate the church’s total value at $30 billion.  .  .  .  .  a recent investigation by Reuters in collaboration with sociology professor Cragun estimates that the LDS Church is likely worth $40 billion today and collects up to $8 billion in tithing each year.

 Many Mormons see their church’s economic success as a sign of good stewardship, but at least a few I spoke to say they are uneasy about the price tag of the new Mormon mall, the church’s lack of transparency, and its centralized finances. “The money may be perfectly administered, for all we know,” says Ron Madson, 57, a lawyer and lifelong Mormon who once served as a church bishop. “But we don’t know. … When we see these expenses for the City Creek Mall, for the hunting preserves, these commercial enterprises, Ensign Peak, we don’t know where it’s going.”

A recently published article co-written by Cragun estimates that the Mormon Church donates only about 0.7 percent of its annual income to charity; the United Methodist Church gives about 29 percent.

There's a lot more, but these excerpts give readers the drift of the article.  Huge inflows of money and small charitable outflows.  Much like Mitt and Ann Romney's finances - or so it would seem since they refuse to release their tax returns which might show that they value something other than making and hanging onto lots and lots of money.

Christianists: Evacuation Of The Titanic A Model Of Christian Charity

I realize that I tend to bash the Christian Right extremists all the time, but honestly, they just keep on providing so much incredible fodder for highlighting their hypocrisy and utter perversion of the Gospel message. Last week I noted that a group inappropriately named Truth In Action had put together a video clip (Right Wing Watch had highlighted to insanity) that likened America to the Titanic about to strike the iceberg except in the video clip, it was us gays who constitute the iceberg. Apparently not content with simply attacking gays and instilling anti-gay hate, Truth In Action has expanded the Titanic theme to also attack evolution and modernity in general in a radio message. What puts the piece over the top is that the chaotic and class driven evacuation of the Titanic is held up as a model of "Christian charity." Seriously, I kid you not. A situation where the wealthy were given first priority - Sir Cosmo Duff-Gord0n and his wife left the ship with ten others in a boat that could have accommodated another 28 people while all eight members of the Goodwin family in third class, including all six children, died. In fact, many in steerage were literally barred from passing through first class areas as they tried to escape from below decks. And this demonstrates "Christian charity"? Only in the bizarre alternate universe world of the Christianists. Right Wing Watch looks at this latest batshitery:

While Truth in Action Ministries recently informed us that the “radical homosexual agenda” is the iceberg out to sink the ship that is America, it turns out that the plot is even thicker, as it appears that feminism and evolution are also culprits in the country’s devastation. Today on the group’s flagship radio program Truth that Transforms, Doug Phillips of Vision Forum appeared to discuss an event he organized in Branson, Missouri, “to celebrate [the] Christian Legacy of Titanic’s sinking.”

“Though more than 1,500 people died in this international tragedy, the Darwinian notion of the ‘survival of the fittest’ was rejected in favor of the age-old Christian doctrine that the ‘strong sacrifice for the weak,’” Phillips said in a statement.

As Julie Ingersoll in Religion Dispatches notes, “as is often the case with ‘providential history,’ the actual history is distorted to make specific theological points”:

By percentage, twice as many women in third class died as did women in first class; children in first class had nearly three times the survival rate of those in third. One would only use "raw numbers" if one was trying to make a point not supported by the numbers.

In biblical patriarchy, the refrain of "women and children first" hides an agenda whereby the women are "first" only insofar as they keep their place which is subordinate to men.

On Truth that Transforms, Phillips pointed to an 1898 shipwreck on the French ship La Bourgogne where hundreds of women and children died, blaming it on “a culture that embraced evolution” and “the French Revolution which had rejected biblical Christianity and embraced paganism.” He went on to argue that the theory of evolution ultimately leads to the growth of feminism, and the “result is babies are killed en masse, women are treated like chattel and men no longer take on their masculine role as defenders.” The host, former Concerned Women for America president Carmen Pate, later bemoaned that evolution and feminism have “infiltrated” almost all aspects of society:

Phillips: People that were on board the deck of the Titanic at that time were individuals that grew up in a culture which was distinctively Christian in its perspective of the role of men and women and there’s an interesting contrast because in the year 1898 a French vessel called La Bourgogne sunk and when it sunk the sailors and the officers literally threw women and children into the water, beat them over the head, and the men lived and the women died. It sent shockwaves throughout the entire world, people said, ‘how could such a thing happen?’ And in trying to understand why that happened, the commentary was, they grew up in a culture that embraced evolution, it was the struggle of the survival of the fittest, they grew up in the culture of the French Revolution which had rejected biblical Christianity and embraced paganism and the consequences were that men treat women horrifically.

Now we flash forward to the year 2012 and this year our president has finally taken us over the abyss and we have full-fledged commitment to women in the frontlines of combat in overseas battles, we need to understand that that’s the first time in the history of the West that any nation has formally endorsed such a thing and it represents a radical departure from the values that were on board the ship in 1912.

Phillips: Evolution says the struggle of the survival of the fittest, there are no differences between men and women, there is no charity, there is no deference, and in an evolutionary world feminism reaches its height and we see no distinctions. The result is babies are killed en masse, women are treated like chattel and men no longer take on their masculine role as defenders.

The irony, of course, is that it is the Christianist who want women to be treated as chattel and preferably kept barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. And as for there being "no charity," no one seems better defined by unrelenting greed and hatred towards others than today's conservative Christians. And people wonder what I don't want to be called Christian?

Anti-Aortion and Anti-Gay Susan G. Kome Executive Resigns

As part of the continuing damage control efforts at the Susan G. Komen Foundation in the wake of the organization's disastrous and short lived decision to completely de-fund Planned Parenthood, anti-abortion and anti-gay extremist Karen Handel has resigned (or, as some conjecture, was fired) from the Komen board. Sadly, the Komen leadership continues to seek to avoid telling the truth coming clean. Although thew Komen board will not admit it, the now departed Karen Handel is increasingly seen as the force that brought about the decision to de-fund Planned Parenthood. The result may well be that donors lost as a result of last week's debacle may never come back. Here are some highlights from CNN:

Karen Handel, a vice president with the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation who resigned Tuesday after a controversy over funding for Planned Parenthood projects, blasted the organization and defended her role in the debate.

Komen's founder and CEO, Nancy Brinker, said in a statement she had accepted Handel's resignation and acknowledged, "we have made mistakes in how we handled recent decisions."

Handel, the foundation's senior vice president for policy, opposes abortion. She was the driving force behind the foundation's decision not to renew parts of its longstanding partnership with Planned Parenthood, the Huffington Post reported earlier this week after reviewing internal e-mails at the foundation. Planned Parenthood operates hundreds of family clinics where abortions are performed.

Handel, a former Georgia secretary of state, was a Republican gubernatorial candidate in Georgia in 2010, losing to current Gov. Nathan Deal in a primary runoff. "Let me be clear, since I am pro-life, I do not support the mission of Planned Parenthood," Handel wrote on her campaign website in 2010.

Several online petitions had called for Handel to be fired, including one from CREDO Action that the organization said Tuesday had some 50,000 signatures. "Komen may have apologized, but they still need to clean house, starting with the person who drove this atrocious action," the petition said "If Komen wishes to rehabilitate its devastated reputation and gain back trust, Handel needs to be fired."

As Bob Felton aptly notes, it is time for the Komen Foundation to tell the truth or possibly face a slow but steady collapse of its organization:

In my own case, there were two elements of this thing that grated:

■ To withdraw the funding in order to frustrate abortions, with the result that other necessary services were not available — abortion is a small part of what Planned Parenthood does — is very much a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater (so to speak). It exhibited, in my judgment, fanaticism if not actual mean-spiritedness directed against the women who rely on Planned Parenthood.

■ Komen was dishonest. They should have said straight-out what they were doing — “We will no longer fund Planned Parenthood because they perform abortions.” — instead of trying to slide under the radar with disingenuous crap. That would have angered some people, and pleased others, but at least everybody would have known what Komen was doing and why, and what their donations were supporting or not supporting.

Rick Santorum's Charity Provided Little Aid to Targeted Beneficiaries

As if there isn't already enough reason to dislike GOP demagogue Rick Santorum, now a story is out that the charity he founded a decade ago to supposedly improve the lives of low-income residents in his home state provided little aid to the intended recipients. Instead, monies went to "administration" and office rental payments to Santorum's political allies. I hate to say it, but Santorum fits the pattern of so many of the "family values" organizations: they talk about family values but focus money on their own salaries and anti-gay and anti-secularism activities and provide little or nothing towards assisting the poor and needy. Hypocrite and modern day Pharisee are terms that once again seem to aptly describe Santorum. Here are highlights from the Washington Post coverage:

[A] decade ago, Rick Santorum, who was then an up-and-coming senator from Pennsylvania, launched a charity he said would improve the lives of low-income residents in his home state. “Wouldn’t it be a great thing to leave something positive behind other than a bunch of parties and a bunch of garbage?” Santorum told a local reporter.

But homeless families and troubled children were not the biggest beneficiaries of “Operation Good Neighbor.” Instead, the foundation spent most of its money to run itself, including hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees for fundraising, administration and office rental paid to Santorum’s political allies.

The charity also had significant overlap with the senator’s campaigns and his work on Capitol Hill. Among the leading donors to the foundation were Pennsylvania development and finance firms that had donated to his election efforts and had interests that Santorum had supported in the Senate. . . . in the case of his charity, his efforts ended up mostly helping his cadre of political friends.

Before it folded in 2007, the foundation raised $2.58 million, with 39 percent of that donated directly to groups helping the needy. By industry standards, such philanthropic groups should be donating nearly twice that, from 75 to 85 percent of their funds. “That’s exceptionally poor,” Ken Berger, president of Charity Navigator, a national organization that rates charitable groups, said of the group’s giving. “We would tell donors to run with fear from this organization.”

Robert Bickhart, a Republican political strategist who was Santorum’s campaign finance director, became the charity’s executive director. He served without pay in 2001, and received payments for renting the charity office space in his Conshohocken consulting firm, Capitol Resource Group. Tax records do not specify the amount paid for rent.
Beginning in 2002, he was paid for his part-time job as director, and from 2002 to 2006 he received a total of $97,000 in compensation, plus unspecified amounts in office rent.

Let's face it, in addition to being a vile homophobe, Santorum looks pretty sleazy as well.

Sounding Dissent Over Salvation Army Bigotry

I've written a number of times on this blog (and in my most recent VEER magazine column) about the anti-gay bigotry of the Salvation Army and suggested that those looking to make charitable contributions avoid the Salvation Army like the plague. Like the Catholic Church, the Salvation Army preaches that gays must live a life of celibacy devoid of intimate loving relationships. For students of accurate history, all of this condemnation is based on a few passages written in the Bible by ignorant nomads whose main purpose was to differentiate the Jewish tribes from other societies where homosexuality was accepted as a norm. As a result, per the Salvation Army, gays are doomed to a life of loneliness. It's ignorance and bigotry taken to the highest levels. Why give funds to an organization that embraces ignorance and engages in the same sort of self-congratulatory hypocrisy as the Pharisees whom Christ so frequently condemned and lambasted in the Gospels. Yet unfortunately, too many donors still do not know the real story of the Salvation Army. Fortunately, my friend and Bilerico Project editor in chief, Bil Browning has worked consistently to get the word out. Now, the New York Times has picked up on Bil's efforts and in the future people will hopefully know to direct that contributions elsewhere. Here are highlights from the Times story:

Bil Browning and his boyfriend were homeless. To protect the identity of the boyfriend (now ex-boyfriend), Mr. Browning will not say specifically where, just that it was in “southern Indiana,” about 20 years ago. But he is very explicit about who refused to give them shelter.

“The Salvation Army refused to help us,” Mr. Browning recalls, “unless we broke up and then left the ‘sinful homosexual lifestyle’ behind. We slept on the street, and they didn’t help when we declined to break up at their insistence.”

Mr. Browning’s boyfriend was wearing a “Silence = Death” AIDS pin on his jacket, which must have tipped off the Salvation Army worker. “He told us we needed to be saved,” Mr. Browning says. “If we were willing to attend church services, he could help. We would have to break up, only one of us could stay in the shelter, and if there was room for the other, he would have to be on the opposite side of the room, and we wouldn’t even look at each other.”

Now Mr. Browning, a writer and gay rights advocate, is using his blog to publicize a decade-old boycott of the Salvation Army. The boycott’s proponents say those who drop money into the Salvation Army’s ubiquitous red kettles at Christmastime, or shop in its thrift stores, often know little about the organization’s evangelical Christianity, its opposition to homosexuality, and its occasional attempts to influence public policy on gay rights.

On his Web site, Mr. Browning, whom the Christian magazine World recently called “the Red Kettle Menace,” encourages people to donate instead to other organizations, like the Red Cross or Doctors without Borders.

The Salvation Army’s “Position Statement” on homosexuality, found on its Web site, reads in part: “The Salvation Army does not consider same-sex orientation blameworthy in itself. Homosexual conduct, like heterosexual conduct, requires individual responsibility and must be guided by the light of scriptural teaching. Scripture forbids sexual intimacy between members of the same sex. The Salvation Army believes, therefore, that Christians whose sexual orientation is primarily or exclusively same-sex are called upon to embrace celibacy as a way of life.”

In 2001, The Washington Post obtained a Salvation Army document that said the administration of President George W. Bush had promised to honor a Salvation Army request: that religious charities receiving federal money be exempt from local gay anti-discrimination laws. The day the request became public, the Bush administration said it was being denied.

And in 2004, in response to a City Council ordinance requiring that organizations with city contracts offer benefits to gay employees’ partners, the Salvation Army threatened to stop operating in New York City. In 2006, the New York State Court of Appeals ruled that Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg did not have to enforce the ordinance, which had been enacted over his veto; the Salvation Army never left New York City.

[A] dollar dropped into a red kettle in New York City, a quarter of a penny ends up at national headquarters, where conversations with the government — not lobbying, Mr. Hood says — may take place.

As to the complaint of discrimination based on sexual orientation, he says it is against Salvation Army policy. “If they were legitimate clients looking for food, they should have been helped,” he says of Mr. Browning and his ex-boyfriend.

While the Salvation Army tries to dance around and deny that it's a nasty, bigoted organization, I side with Bil Browning and others I know who have been discriminated against first hand. As a result, I'd frankly rather light my money on fire before I'd ever place it in a Salvation Army kettle. Like many other far right Christian organizations, the Salvation Army makes me long for the day when Christianity - or at least the version propounded by the Salvation Army - is a dead religion. There is no place for hate and bigotry in the world and organizations that foment it need to be thrown on the trash heap of history.

Why You Shouldn't Donate to the Salvation Army Bell Ringers

I've written about this topic before, but as we head into the holiday season it's worth stressing that some charities such as the Salvation Army are NOT worthy of our donations. Yes, the organization's web site pretends to be accepting regardless of one's sexual orientation, but as my friend, Bilerico Project editor Bil Browning, notes in a recent blog post, actions speak far louder than words. With many, many worthy charities that do not engage in religious based anti-LGBT discrimination, there is no excuse for donating funds to the Salvation Army. I have absolutely no problem walking right on by the donation kettles. The bigger challenge is to not say what I really think. Here are highlights from Bil's post:

As the holidays approach, the Salvation Army bell ringers are out in front of stores dunning shoppers for donations. If you care about gay rights, you'll skip their bucket in favor of a charity that doesn't actively discriminate against the LGBT community.

The Salvation Army has a history of active discrimination against gays and lesbians. While you might think you're helping the hungry and homeless by dropping a few dollars in the bright red buckets, not everyone can share in the donations. Many LGBT people are rejected by the evangelical church charity because they're "sexually impure."

The church claims it holds "a positive view of human sexuality," but then clarifies that "sexual intimacy is understood as a gift of God to be enjoyed within the context of heterosexual marriage." The Salvation Army doesn't believe that gays and lesbians should ever know the intimacy of any loving relationship, instead teaching that "Christians whose sexual orientation is primarily or exclusively same-sex are called upon to embrace celibacy as a way of life."

On its webpage, the group claims that "the services of The Salvation Army are available to all who qualify, without regard to sexual orientation." While the words are nice, their actions speak volumes. They blatantly ignore the position statement and deny LGBT people services unless they renounce their sexuality, end same-sex relationships, or, in some cases, attend services "open to all who confess Christ as Savior and who accept and abide by The Salvation Army's doctrine and discipline." In other words, if you're gay or lesbian, you don't qualify.

The organization also has a record of actively lobbying governments worldwide for anti-gay policies - including an attempt to make consensual gay sex illegal. (Yes, you're paying lobbyists with those donations.)

Since 1986 the Salvation Army has engaged in five major assaults on the LGBT community's civil rights and attempted to carve out exemptions that would allow them to deny gays and lesbians needed services as well as employment.

***When New Zealand considered passage of the Homosexual Law Reform Act in 1986, the Salvation Army collected signatures in an attempt to get the legislation killed. The act decriminalized consensual sex between gay men. The measure passed over the charity's objections.

***In the United Kingdom, the Salvation Army actively pushed passage of an amendment to the Local Government Act. The amendment stated that local authorities "shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality" or "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship." The law has since been repealed, but it led many schools and colleges to close LGBT student organizations out of fear they'd lose their government funding.

***In 2001, the organization tried to extract a resolution from the White House that they could ignore local non-discrimination laws that protected LGBT people. While the commitment would have applied to all employees, the group claimed that it needed the resolution so it "did not have to ordain sexually active gay ministers and did not have to provide medical benefits to the same-sex partners of employees." After lawmakers and civil rights activists revealed the Salvation Army's active resistance to non-discrimination laws, the White House admitted the charity was seeking the exemptions.

***Also in 2001, the evangelical charity actively lobbied to change how the Bush administration would distribute over $24 billion in grants and tax deductions by urging the White House deny funding to any cities or states that included LGBT non-discrimination laws. Ari Fleischer, White House press secretary, issued a statement saying the administration was denying a "regulation sought by the church to protect the right of taxpayer-funded religious organizations to discriminate against homosexuals."

In 2004, the Salvation Army threatened to close all their soup kitchens in New York City to protest the city's decision to require all vendors and charities doing business with the city to adhere to all civil rights laws. The organization balked at having to treat gay employees equal to straight employees.

I've seen the discrimination the Salvation Army preaches first hand. When a former boyfriend and I were homeless, the Salvation Army insisted we break up before they'd offer assistance. We slept on the street instead and declined to break up as they demanded.

Instead of donating to the Salvation Army, choose a different charity that will help everyone without prejudice. Find a local secular charity - or here are some national organizations that provide help to anyone who needs it.

Amen to Bil's recommendations. Give your hard earned money to non-discrimiatory charities and hopefully in time the Salvation Army will "see the light" or wither away and cease being a cesspool of bigotry.

Canadian Political Party Pushing For Revocation of Tax-Exempt Status for "Ex-Gay" Organizations

In a move that one could only dream would become a reality in the USA, Canada's New Democratic Party (NDP), now the largest progressive party, has adopted a resolution calling for the Canadian government to revoke the charitable status of "ex-gay organizations." The move makes perfect sense. If one is a charity for tax purposes, it ought to be a requirement that one actually engage in charitable activities as opposed to marketing lies and dangerous witch doctor like therapy condemned by legitimate medical and mental health care associations. There is no reason why taxpayers should be indirectly subsidizing bogus science by giving "ex-gay" organizations a free ride tax wise. Needless to say, the Bible thumpers and "ex-gays for pay" are acting as if someone pissed in their Cheerios and the spittle is flying. The Christianist faux news site OneNewsNow reports on this common sense development in Canada. Here are highlights:
*
The New Democratic Party (NDP), which supplanted the Liberal Party in the May election as the dominate left-wing political group, recently held its convention in Vancouver and unanimously approved a resolution that calls on the Canadian government to revoke the charitable status of "ex-gay organizations."
*
Brian Rushfeldt, executive director of Canada Family Action (CFA), contends the NDP's resolution is "blatant discrimination" against groups that assist those exiting the homosexual lifestyle. "When they will target a few particular ministries that minister to people wanting to get out of the homosexual lifestyle ... and say, 'We're going to shut you down,' there is no other word for it except blatant discrimination based somehow on left-wing socialist ideology," Rushfeldt decides.
*
Obviously, no one is looking to shut down these fraudulent organizations - the public would simply no longer be providing an indirect subsidy. And if the groups cannot make it without a subsidy, then too damn bad. The "ex-gays for pay" can go out and get real jobs.

Another Reason to Avoid Donating to The Salvation Army

People are sometimes aghast when they hear me advocate not donating a single penny to the Salvation Army ("SA") and need to be educated on the intense homophobia of that organization's leadership and policies. In truth, the SA is an extremist religious organization as further demonstrated by the news that it throws away donated toys it doesn't like. Two specifically targeted groups of toys are those that pertain to Harry Potter and Twilight. It seems the godly Christians at SA cannot differentiate between simple childhood fun and fantasy and and serious demonic ritual. This obsession says far more about the mental instability of the SA leadership than it does about anything else. One would think the SA would show some respect for toys donated after being purchased with someone's hard earned money, but such is not the case. Rather than give the supposedly objectionable toys to a not nutcase charity, the SA sends the donations to the garbage and landfill - a destination more appropriate for the SA itself. Bob Felton at Civil Commotion aptly describe the situation this way:
*
Bottom line: Some well-intended fool wastes his money on gifts destined to never even be opened, the kids go without — but some pole-up-his-butt soldier for Jesus gets to celebrate his own stringent virtue.
*
Personally, I see the increasing insanity of the Christian Taliban as a clear and present danger to a rational, future embracing society. Here are highlights from the Edmontson Sun:
*
The Salvation Army says it refuses to distribute Harry Potter and Twilight toys collected for needy children because they're incompatible with the charity's Christian beliefs.
*
The policy has alarmed a Calgarian who volunteered to sift through a southeast warehouse full of unused, donated items and was alarmed when he was told by Salvation Army officials that the two kinds of toys are "disposed of" and not given to other charities.
*
"I was told to withhold a six-inch Harry Potter figure, but when I picked up a plastic M-16, I was told, 'That's for the 10-year-olds,'" he said. "I was shocked...war-themed toys and toys from TV shows and movies with far more violence than Harry Potter and these were considered appropriate toys?" The Sally Ann refuses to distribute the Twilight and Harry Potter toys because of their wizardry, vampire and werewolf content, said Capt. Pam Goodyear.
*
The world will be a better place when ignorant and bigoted organizations like the SA wither away and die. There's more than enough hate and bigotry in the world without it being further propagated by religious extremists like the SA.

Exodus International Affiliate's Tax-Exempt Status Called into Question in Canada

The "ex-gay" lie dispensing New Zealand affiliate of Exodus International has already lost its tax exempt status. Now an effort is underway to win the same result in Canada. To be tax-exempt, an organization needs to be (1) educational or providing a charitable service and (2) non-political Anyone familiar with the activities of Exodus and its affiliates that masquerade under various names knows that the organizations fit neither requirement. The entire underlying purpose of Exodus is political and the organization is bankrolled by far right Christian groups who use the "gays can change" myth to influence politicians and legislation.

*

Given the condemnation of reparative therapy and the ex-gay myth by the APA and every other legitimate medical and mental health association, it is ridiculous that the IRS has not revoked Exodus' tax-exempt status in the USA. The fact that it has not done so is yet another example of the pernicious special rights afforded to religious belief and alleged religious groups in this country. I truly would love to find a group of ex-Exodus enrollees who have harmed by its witchdoctor like programs and willing to file lawsuits against the organization. Given the universal condemnation of ex-gay conversion programs by all legitimate experts (as opposed to religious extremists), one would think that the likelihood of prevailing would be good. Here are highlights from Xtra on the challenge being launched in Canada:
*
A grassroots campaign is seeking to revoke the charitable status of the controversial Exodus Global Alliance, a Toronto-based international organization that claims "change is possible for the homosexual through the transforming power of Jesus Christ."
*
Slapupsidethehead.com blogger Mark McIntyre spearheaded the campaign last month after discovering that New Zealand's Charities Commission refused to grant charitable status to Exodus Ministries Trust Board. The commission determined that the New Zealand group did not provide a charitable purpose.
*
Canadian law requires a charity to provide a measurable benefit to the public as a whole, or a significant section of it.
"I'm pretty sure Revenue Canada -- if they knew what Exodus itself is actually doing -- they might have an issue with it," McIntyre says. Exodus, which has never been sanctioned, is registered as a religious charity under the category of missionary organizations and propagation of gospel.
*
Exodus Global Alliance's annual returns to Canada Revenue Agency have never mentioned the group's main goal: pushing gay people to change their sexuality. In fact, the reports never refer to sexual orientation at all.
*
For 10 years, the reports have described the organization's mission in 30 words: "Educating and training in dealing with abuse and family issues. Developing ministries to help families and individuals in pain. Teaching church groups, schools and youth. Helping and teaching at conferences." Bryan Kliewer, executive director of Exodus Global Alliance, says the word "homosexual" doesn't appear in the description because there wasn't enough space.
*
In New Zealand, the Charities Commission said in a detailed, 15-page decision in August that Exodus Ministries Trust Board had no charitable purpose, such as relieving poverty or advancing education or religion. The commission questioned whether the organization could provide a public benefit, noting that homosexuality is no longer considered a mental disorder, gay sex is legal, civil unions are recognized and discrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal. The commission cited the American Psychological Association and American Medical Association websites, which reject reparative therapy.
*
"It's clear that from Exodus Global Alliance's webpage that they're in the same industry. And they are getting charitable status, and that's what I have an issue with."

Knights of Colubus Funneling Big Dollars to NOM at Expense of Real Charitable Projects

In a former phase of my life - when I was still a Catholic - I was a member of the Knights of Columbus. In fact, I was a member of the 4th Degree, the highest level of the K of C. Why would someone want to be a member of the Knights? Because in theory, the K of C does all kinds of charitable work for the down and out and those in need, especially families. The website of the K of C describes its activities in this manner:
*
From the moment of our founding in 1882, charity has been the first principle of the Knights of Columbus. We are men of faith and men of action. . . . Our charitable activities encompass an almost infinite variety of local, national and international projects. From international charitable partnerships with Special Olympics, the Global Wheelchair Mission and Habitat for Humanity to our own Food for Families and Coats for Kids projects and other purely local charities, . . .
*
Or at least that's what the K of C used to do. Not so much any more. Now, funding un-Democratic, parasitic anti-gay organizations has taken a leading position in the Knights' endeavors. Yep, one of the primary beneficiaries of the the Knights largess is the National Organization of Marriage and similar anti-gay organizations. Widows and children can just go to Hell apparently under the new strategic plan of the leadership of the K of C. As if this diversion of funds donated for charitable purposes wasn't bad enough, the leadership of the K of C have their noses so far up the asses of the Church hierarchy that it's a wonder they haven't suffocated. And as for demanding accountability from the Church hierarchy, the K of C is missing in action. Even after damning evidence of former Supreme Chaplin Bishop Daly's involvement in the intimidation of victims of sexual abuse by priests in the Boston Archdiocese, the K of C did NOTHING. Daly remained in office and the ass kissing and obsequious behavior to those like him continued unabated. The Iowa Independent has an article on the disgusting behavior of the K of C and its bankrolling of anti-gay measures. Here are some highlights:
*
Add to that list a donation of a whopping $1.4 million in 2009 to the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), a nonprofit group dedicated to fighting same-sex marriage through the ballot initiative system in California, Maine and other states. In Iowa, the group has already spent $235,000 on an ad campaign aimed at convincing voters to oust three Iowa Supreme Court justices over their ruling that legalized same-sex marriage, and before that spent nearly $100,000 on a special legislative election in southeastern Iowa.
*
The NOM donation eclipses what the Knights of Columbus’ Supreme Council spent on some of its own charitable programs — such as its new effort supporting food banks or its total spending on education initiatives — in the same year, much to the outrage of some observers, including Catholic groups.
*
“It was a fairly simple, straightforward decision,” says Patrick Korten, vice president for communications for the Knights. “We are pro-family, and believe strongly in the defense of marriage. NOM is the single most important group engaged in defending marriage.”
*
Less straightforward is the fact that NOM has adopted a policy of refusing to disclose its donors to state election boards, and has sued in the courts rather than complying with existing law — thereby prompting much speculation as to the organization’s sources of funding. (NOM did not respond to repeated requests for comment.) The Knights of Columbus, however, freely disclosed its donation in its August 3 report. The amount was enough to have funded most of NOM’s successful $1.9 million effort to repeal Maine’s same sex marriage law in 2009.
*
Gay-rights activists have long speculated that the Mormon Church was the primary benefactor behind NOM. But the Knights of Columbus disclosure shows the Catholic group played a pivotal role in funding NOM’s efforts to deny marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples.
*
[T]he Knights of Columbus’s role in funding NOM — as well as more overt forms of support for Maine’s Amendment 1 initiative from the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland, Maine – are prompting Catholics opposed to the Church’s involvement in marriage equality issues to organize and speak out.
*
“You’ve got this really interesting funnel of tax-free money coming from the Dioceses and the Council of Bishops and the Knights of Columbus directly to these campaigns,” notes Phil Attey, executive director of the newly launched organization, Catholics for Equality. “Why are groups like NOM hiding where they’re getting their money? If it turns out to be a front group for the conservative side of the church, Catholics have the right to know because the majority of American Catholics, and we can show you heaps of polls, don’t support that [kind of spending].”
*
[S]ome Catholic activists have also taken offense to the fact that, in an economic downturn, the Knights of Columbus Supreme Council’s funding for anti-gay marriage causes has outstripped the amount of funds it supplied for several deserving charitable programs it highlights in its 2010 report.
*
Catholic activists predict that such spending on conservative causes will provoke a backlash among the faithful. “Do you think someone in New Mexico thought their donation was going to this effort in Maine, as opposed to aiding the sick and feeding the hungry?” asks George Burns, an attorney in Maine who fought NOM’s campaign to pass Amendment 1.
*
“If Catholics find out that while their parishes are closing, and charity work is being underfunded, that our church hierarchy is playing political games with their money, we believe that they’ll be as concerned as we are,” argues Attey.
*
“Their heritage was as an insurance company because Catholics were discriminated against and couldn’t get insurance,” observes Rev. Dr. Joseph Palacios, founding board member of Catholics for Equality. These days, however, they’re better known for fighting against the marriage rights of gays and lesbian citizens.
*
What should concerned Catholics do? First, resign for the K of C if you're a member and tell them why you are resigning. Better yet, leave the Catholic Church. Both the K of C and the Catholic Church hierarchy are obsessed with membership numbers. Only a sharp decline in membership and corresponding declines in financial contributions are the only things that these folks respond to. The Episcopal Church and ELCA both offer viable alternatives for Catholics but without the foul stench of the Vatican and it's minions like the K of C.