NOM’s fraud against gay people is just too blatant to pass by.

 Yesterday and today there is much discussion in the gay blog world of a blatant misuse of an Obama rally photo to show supposed support for NOM’s plans to get rid of gay folks. Well, this “National Organization for Marriage” is not “for” marriage – but is very much opposed to the mere existence of gay people. They are proud of their “ex-gay” efforts – a genocide of sorts, which we will not join, of course. The efforts that are dismal failures mostly because us gay folks are not quite willing to change, and so thus while we are some 10 to 20 million, (no one knows, everyone is afraid to count,) the entire “ex-gay” “community has less members than a NOM rally, or an Occupy Wall Street rally for that matter. It numbers in the low to middle zilch and zeroes. Why, even the head of one of those groups, Exodus I think, doesn’t matter, went on record to say, “Nope, never met an ex-gay man.” Wow, eh?

But, well, this just goes beyond political tomfoolery or stupid politician tricks. Here’s the report:

http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2011/10/photo-a-mutant-strain-of-nom-misrepresentation-part-2.html

For good measure, even a “family” site is wary of this mush NOM has presented:

http://familyscholars.org/2011/10/26/noms-unethical-swiping-of-obama-rally-photos/comment-page-1/#comment-64891

And here’s what I wrote there, since the complainer, one Barry Deutsch, thought it funny, and possibly unethical – well, I dare say, it’s beyond “funny” and “unethical” I would think:

It’s more than funny, it’s stupid political tricks. And it’s more than unethical, it’s deceit and fraud. They must have knowingly chosen a photograph of a large crowd — one they know doesn’t exist at their rallies, one they had to have known had nothing to do with them – and presented it as their own crowd. That they used an Obama rally is one thing, the funny part I suppose; but even if they had used a photo of a Republican rally it still would have been knowingly using a photograph that wasn’t theirs. Most photos are copyrighted — so it might even be an illegal use of other’s work, and I doubt NOM paid the photographer for his work, nor asked permission of the news source for reuse, and I doubt either of them would have allowed it. So it’s far more intricate than merely “funny” or “unethical” but something rather legally suspect.

But thank you for bringing this to a wider audience.

End>>

And here’s the two images which is the damning proof of their lies, theft and fraud:

The above is reality — here’s the fantasy world of NOM:

Look carefully, now — same people,  same clothes, same building in the background — my my, blatant eh?

And so I wonder, has NOM painted itself into a legal thicket? I would think so. I would think that the copyrighted images of an Obama Rally are not to be used without permission – and I doubt permission would have been given to use a 2008 photo from Ohio in a 2011 ad in New Hampshire – particularly since the Obama rally would almost certainly been more pro-gay than any NOM rally ever held. And so I would urge the copyright holders and the news source of the original photo to demand the immediate end to the use of the photo – and perhaps to publicly apologize for having misappropriated the photo – and well, even to pay some sort of damages in a lawsuit of some kind. Why, it’s just theft, and nothing more.

And now that so many Republican candidates have kissed Maggie Gallagher’s ample tuckus, and now that John Boehner, Speaker of the House of Representatives has used Ms. Gallagher’s testimony as his almost exclusive source for his use of Gay Tax Dollars to “defend” the odious and impractical and unconstitutional, and not to mention, Orwellian named, “Defense of Marriage Act,” will these people distance themselves from such political chicanery? I would think that Mr. Boehner should say “No, Ms. Gallagher, don’t come near me, you are a thief and a fraud.” And then he should redact, extract and remove all her testimony as also suspect.

If one is for free and fair debate, shouldn’t one use the photos of your own rallies? Sure, you know, the ones NOM holds with a few dozen people. And weirdly, it was NOM which joined hand in hand with Democrat Ruben Diaz who is all for hanging out with people who say “Gays are worthy of death” – doesn’t that make her and her organization typical leftists? Sure it does. You know, calling for getting rid of “enemies of the people” – and her own ally in bizarreness, Bryan Fischer demanding we be declared a “public health threat.” (Which is odd, for he doesn’t want tax dollars to be used on gay folks, but now calls for billions to be spent to remove us gay folks, the ahem, public health threat somehow, to get rid of us from society.)

Why, many on the Right, who proclaim to value truth and honesty, good values both, I’m sure, and are quite opposed to this sort of Soviet image manipulation. And would those on the Right who don’t like Obama be upset that a supposed “right wing” organization used an Obama Rally photo to press its case? One would think so. And will conservative magazines like American Spectator and National Review decry this sort of Stalinist tactic of manipulating images? I would think so, for if you are against it when the Left uses it, I suppose one should be equally against it when any of your friends do to, no?

And shouldn’t the Elections commissions, and oh, the Dept of Justice be looking into the theft of the photo, the misuse of the images, the blatant photoshopping to create something which never, in fact, happened? Wouldn’t the various agencies which monitor the electoral process, including the mainstream press – press on with investigation of why this occurred? And to what detriment to the public debate over sissy smooching? Why, sure, I would think so. I think this story should grow big, get some legs. I would urge every reader here to alert their friends that this sort of nonsense is just unacceptable.

I mean, OK, NOM, hold your pitifully small rallies – but to bear false witness? And can the Catholic Church be in league with this group, a group which is already in trouble legally for not wanting to disclose their financial sources as is required of political groups? Sure they are. And the Church, one would presume, is against Lying, no? After all, that is a commandment, right? Sure it is. And so will the Church fathers, those who are bigwigs in the curia of the national Church, shouldn’t they be publicly tut-tutting this sort of blatant falsehood? I would think so, just to avoid appearing the hypocrite, no? And hypocrisy is the worse sin, according to Jesus himself.

And since the images had to have been stolen, and thievery being quite frowned upon, shouldn’t the Church now call for the end of such things? Shouldn’t they castigate Gallagher and her group? Sure they should, just to live up to their own teachings: thou shall not steal! Yes, yes, and yes, they should indeed stand up and be forthright: “Maggie, you have done wrong.”

And should Maggie and her henchmen be brought to account in every forum in this land for having wrongly used a photo and for lying, thievery, Soviet tactics, etc, etc, etc, down the murky road of illegal acts, blatant fraud and simply being morons of unimaginable proportions? Sure she and they should be. So let us now commence that. Let us get rid of this odious but of genocidal nutjobs who are out to do nothing for anyone whatsoever, but simply live in their delusional world where gay folks are the bad guys.

Say good bye Maggie, this one ain’t going to go away. And let me say, if they did it once, they did it twice, and then thus thrice I’m sure. Why, already more versions of this Obama image in NOM ads is surfacing. My, my, what a thicket one does weave when one practices to deceive.