So when Andrew Breitbart asked me if I’d interview Carrie about her new book, Still Standing, out November 9 from Regnery, I chuckled and thought: The liberal faithful will think this is perfect: One “fanatical homophobe” interviewing another. 

Except that they would be wrong.

In case you’ve been living under a rock this year, Carrie Prejean is the former Miss California who became an accidental lightning rod in the spring. At a glitzy pageant held April 19 at the Planet Hollywood Resort and Casino in Las Vegas, Carrie appeared poised to be crowned Miss USA. But during the final segment of the contest, a Q&A with pageant judges, Carrie drew as her questioner the gay gossip aficionado, Perez Hilton. 

Ignoring the longstanding pageant tradition of steering clear of politically charged questions, Hilton launched this salvo: “Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?” 

Keeping her mega-watt smile picture-perfect, Carrie revealed no outward hint of concern. But inside, she writes in Still Standing, “it was as though I could feel time slowing down; as if silence was screaming in my ears…I had to break that silence with my answer – and I had to do it now…” 

“Well, I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other…” Carrie answered. “And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman…” 

And with that, a 22-year-old lifelong athlete who works with developmentally disabled children became the global poster-child for virulent “homophobia.” Within 24 hours, a histrionic Hilton had called her a “dumb bitch,” then corrected himself, saying he wished he’d called her a “c**t.” Immediately, pundits and bloggers who use typically their media platforms to decry “hate” napalmed Carrie with every hateful invective from “bigot” to “Nazi.” One British politician even issued a televised death threat. 

I know a little about what that’s like. In late September, HarperCollins announced that it had bumped up the publication date for Sarah Palin’s memoir, Going Rogue: An American Life, to November 17. As Sarah’s collaborative writer, I suddenly became a target (the left having running out of original ways to insult the former Alaska governor herself.) 

Andrew Sullivan, who blogs at The Atlantic’s website, read my arguments in favor of traditional marriage, and summarily crowned me a “fanatical homophobe.” Others, to use Perez Hilton’s term, followed suit. 

Had Sullivan bothered to reach out for a reasoned dialogue, I might’ve shared with him that my sister Lori, an articulate, politically active lesbian on the progressive left, has had with me some pretty productive discussions on gay marriage. That for me, it’s about more than “the Bible tells me so”; it’s about the collision of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. 

I might’ve shared with Sullivan that the maid of honor at my wedding was my best friend, CM, and her longtime lesbian partner. Sure CM looked a little athletic schlepping down the aisle in her 1980’s tea-length, peach satin dress with dyed-to-match pumps. But then neither one of us walks like Carrie Prejean. 

…Who, incidentally, learned her sexy pageant walk from a gay man. 

Let’s face it ladies, nobody can work a pair of pumps like the right gay man. And it was an openly gay man named Jim (whom Carrie describes in Stilling Standing as “wonderful”) who transformed her from lanky athlete to slinky siren, and taught her not to lope across the pageant stage like a giraffe. And it was also a gay man, Keith Lewis, who courted Carrie to compete for Miss California, then Miss USA – a man Carrie thought at the time had her best interests at heart. 

See, the irony is that people like Carrie and I can be confidantes and even best friends with the gays and lesbians in our lives. We can be in mentoring relationships, like Carrie and Jim. We can collaborate on ideas, as I did with “Anlir,” a gay commenter whose ideas I often adopted when I managed World Magazine’s evangelical-focused blog. We can even be accepting of our family members’ sexuality. 

But if we dare to differ on the issue of gay marriage, then the truth about our actual relationships with gays and lesbians is ignored, liberals’ clairvoyant “insight” into our hearts and minds is substituted as fact, and our protestations are filed mockingly under the “some of my best friends” defense. 

If, on the institution of marriage, we say publicly that we believe the same thing as voters in 31 states – in every state, in fact, where gay marriage has been put on the ballot – then we become targets who must be defamed and destroyed. 

Sadly, snap judgment and name-calling would once have been uncharacteristic for Andrew Sullivan. My good friend Anita Palmer, former managing editor of Eternity, an evangelical monthly, told me she was a huge fan of Sullivan’s laser-like reasoning back when he wrote for The New Republic. 

“He was acerbic, but brilliantly logical, almost irrefutable in that succinct, British way that was just a joy to read,” Anita told me at Starbucks the other day. Her tone was wistful; she missed that Andrew Sullivan, she said. 

Carrie and I both long for the Sullivan of old – and for more people like my sister Lori – who would be willing to chuck name-calling and personal destruction in favor of reasoned, civil debate. 

*****

Lynn Vincent:  Okay, let’s just get the “sex tape” elephant out of the room. When I read about this I thought, “You know what, this isn’t really a ‘sex tape’ as we’ve come to think of sex tapes when they break in the media.”  What are your thoughts on that? 

Carrie Prejean:  Well, there is a video that is out there, and I’m not proud of it and I was very immature at the time. People can call it whatever they want to call it. But it’s definitely not a sex tape. But it’s still the worst mistake I’ve ever made. 

LV:  So I was thinking about this and I thought, “Okay, she was probably with her boyfriend and they were, you know, together and he was filming her…”

CP:  Well, let’s just get that thing taken care of. There was no one else in the room with me. I was by myself. It was for a boyfriend at the time, who I trusted and we were dating at the time. So, I think that definitely needs to get cleared up. 

LV:  So you made the tape and you shared it with this boyfriend. 

CP:  Well at the time, I guess I thought I was being a good girlfriend. 

LV:  I think in the flap copy of your book and in other places, it talks about you being a role model for young Christian women, so there will be people who say that you’re a hypocrite. What’s your response to that? 

CP:  Well, it’s definitely not something that I’m proud of, like I said. And, you know I still think that I am a role model. I think that we’re all sinners – we all make mistakes. The only perfect person is God, and I know that He forgives me….I’m forgiven for the things that I’ve done and how many of us want to share the most horrible mistake that you’ve ever made with complete strangers? Even talking about this right now with you is extremely uncomfortable. And, you know, we all make mistakes, we all do things we’re not proud of. But what matters most is who we are now and who I am now is someone that is a strong, strong person and I’m still standing. The bottom line is who I am today, and that’s a strong woman who defended traditional marriage, and that’s the only reason why we’re really even discussing this right now. 

LV:  Right. And so, in terms of a role model, I think you could say that some of the lessons we teach as role models arise from mistakes we’ve made. That’s how we get our experience. 

CP:  Right. And I think that now I can definitely teach younger girls, don’t ever do something [sexually inappropriate], even when you’re in love and you think that he’s Mr. Right and you “know” nothing will come out, because everything that you do – all the choices that you make – will affect you in the long run. Did I think when I was seventeen that…when I was twenty-two years old and in the spotlight, that the choices that I made then would come out now? No. But, that’s why young women need to learn from this. They need to really think about what they’re doing and make the right decisions and don’t ever do something that you wouldn’t want your pastor, your mother, your father, or your friends to see. Nothing is private anymore in this world, unfortunately. 

LV:  How did you feel about your opponents in this lawsuit presenting you with material that you recorded when you were a minor, in order to secure a favorable outcome for themselves in this lawsuit? 

CP:  Well, I’m not really going to be discussing anything that happened in mediation because I signed a legal agreement. It seems as if I’m the only one sticking to that agreement, and I will continue to obey that agreement. So anything that was discussed I’m not able to talk about right now. 

LV:  Well, let’s move onto your book. I was sitting in Starbucks in Del Mar enjoying it the other morning and, at the beginning, you take us right into that moment Perez Hilton asked you the question about gay marriage at the Miss USA pageant in Las Vegas. Take us to that moment. What were you thinking then? What were you feeling? 

CP:  Well, I just remember being so excited, and that I felt so proud and honored to be representing the state of California. I’d worked hard for this job and I was ready to become Miss USA. I was very confident with public speaking and being able to handle questions under pressure, and I just remember after hearing the question that I couldn’t believe that it was even being asked in a pageant. But I knew that I had to deal with it…but when I began to answer the question I felt as though so much of the hard work and dedication…that I had put into this pageant was just – it was gone…There was no way I was going to win Miss USA if I gave the answer that I gave. And it was worth it to me. It was worth it to be honest and tell the truth rather than to back down to just win Miss USA for the year…I think that was a test. It was a test and we’re all tested at some point in our lives and, you know, I think that I did pass the test. 

LV:  And, you know it was interesting last Tuesday the state of Maine became the 31st state to vote “No” on gay marriage. This time the vote was a bit different in that the state actually repealed a law allowing gay marriage. And this was in a state where voters are widely considered to be moderates and independents. So if you support traditional marriage, and people in Maine support traditional marriage, and people in the thirty other states where this issue has been put on the ballot support gay marriage, why do you think you were so viciously attacked? 

CP:  Well, for one, I think it’s because I was in a pageant…the type of setting where there’s media and there’s the entertainment industry. And I’m a pageant girl – I’m not supposed to have an opinion and I’m not supposed to be intelligent and I’m not supposed to stand up for what I believe. I’m supposed to back down to win this tiara. And when I didn’t do that, I think people were shocked. And when I continued to defend the stand I took, people became frustrated. They knew that they were not able to take me down. They knew I was going to stand by what I said and I wasn’t going to take back what I said – that it was just an honest answer. There was nothing controversial about it. And it is mind-boggling to me that we’re still even talking about this seven months later. It’s not even a controversial issue. The President of the United States agrees with me. Sarah Palin agrees with me. The majority of people in the United States and my state agree with me — that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. 

LV:  One of the things that has been personally dismaying to me is that I have had and do have great relationships with gays and lesbians. But instead of being able to sit down and have a civil discussion about the issues, about gay marriage, about domestic partnerships, about civil unions, with people who feel differently than you and I do, that it always goes into attack mode. It always goes into name-calling. So my question is, if you had a chance to sit down to coffee with some of your critics personally and it was you and them at Starbucks just talking about this issue, what would you say? 

CP:  Well, I want everybody to know that this is not a personal attack. It’s not me hating anyone. I don’t hate anyone. It was just that I was asked a question at a pageant and I had to give an honest answer. I had to be true to myself and I had to be true to the way I was raised. So I would just let them know that this is not a hateful thing against anyone. It’s just a personal opinion, and we are all entitled to our personal opinions. And we should have the right to express our personal opinions. Since when are we not able to give our own opinion when we’re asked? 

LV:  So you’re saying, you should be able to give an answer other than “world peace?” 

CP:  Exactly. You should be able to give an honest answer and not be attacked, not be called every name in the book, not be fired, and not have every single one of your boyfriends being called from your past to see if they’ll give up some dirt. 

LV:  Over the past seven months, is there anything that you would do differently if you had a chance to do it again? 

CP:  No, I really don’t have any regrets. I think that I’ve had a great support team. I’ve had people that I’ve surrounded myself with who are positive, people who give me great advice, who stand with me. You know, I’m not alone in this. My detractors would love to hear me say that I feel alone and I feel sad and I feel miserable. But you know what? I don’t. This was such a learning experience for me and I’m glad I learned these lessons at such a young age. But I’m happy now to just move on with my life. I hope that mothers and daughters and conservatives read my book and feel empowered to express their own personal beliefs and opinions… I hope that I was able to be used in a positive way to give other people encouragement. 

LV:  In your book you write about an old sports trick where you – as a basketball player, for example – you visualize sinking the shot. You said that when you were competing in the Miss USA pageant, you visualized the things you would do to win the competition. 

CP:  Yes. 

LV:  What are you visualizing going forward in your life? 

CP: Well, I always have told myself, ‘you draw the line then you live above it.’ Hopefully other young women can learn from [my experience], not only with the stance that I took in standing up for what you believe, but also that if you do have an opinion, don’t be afraid. Don’t be afraid to say it and stand by it. And if people try and attack you, then so be it. Let them, let them attack you. Let them dig up things from your past. And if you’re faced with a controversy like this [tape], then admit to it. The truth will set you free. 

LV:  Now in Stilling Standing, you dish quite a bit on Keith Lewis and Shanna Moakler [both of the Miss California organization.]…You’re pretty tough on them. What will be your response to people who say you used your book to settle scores? 

CP:  The purpose of writing my book was for me to tell my side. I think that was really important. I think the media definitely got a twisted version of what really happened. So it was important for me to set the record straight. As far as Keith Lewis and Shanna Moakler, I wish them well. This was just my chance to tell my side of the story and to clear some things up. 

LV: I want to touch on the issue of your faith since it’s obviously the defining thread that runs through your life. I was interested to read in your book that at the state level, at the Miss California pageant, the judges actually praised you for talking about your faith. And then you move on to Miss USA and you have your handlers, like Moakler, telling you, “Don’t talk about God! Don’t talk about God!” What was that like for you? 

CP:  That was difficult. It was very difficult. I was dealing with people who didn’t think the same way that I did. So from the very beginning it was a challenge, but I learned to deal with it. 

LV:  One of the things that really struck me in your book was when you describe Keith Lewis really putting his hands on you and sort of sizing you up and touching your body all over to see if he thought that you were in good enough visual shape to compete. It sort of reminded me of – I don’t know – someone sizing up livestock that they were going to buy. Was that humiliating for you? 

CP:  Yes. And I think that was when I really realized the business that I was in and the industry that I was in. And it was shocking to me but, you know, I had to deal with it because I had won the [Miss California] pageant and so I just thought, “Okay, this is just what they do.” Looking back, I think this was their way of telling me, “Okay, you’re ours now and we’re going to mold you and shape you to be who we want you to be. And you will listen to us.” 

LV:  I would imagine that it was a moment where you began kind of thinking, “Oh my goodness, what have I gotten myself into?” 

CP:  Right. Exactly. And that’s what I did think. 

LV:  One of the things that I noticed early in the book was where you talked about one of your early mentors counseling you to just be yourself in these pageants, Carrie. Just be yourself. And certainly you did that when Perez Hilton asked you that question. And yet on some other things, earlier in your pageant career, you sort of allowed yourself to be carried away from that early advice. You know, as though the pageant machine was sort of driving you forward. Can you talk a little bit about how you get caught up in that kind of thing and carried along? 

CP:  In my book you’ll see that I was tested twice.  The first time was when they had asked me not to talk about God anymore and [I didn’t]. It made me feel really uncomfortable… I felt this guilt inside of me knowing that I had not stood up when I could have. I could have said, “No, that’s not right,” or “I don’t agree with you.” But instead I just kind of played it off and ignored the situation. So, I definitely learned from that. 

LV:  So in, I think in a very human way, in those particular situations you were…kind of going along to get along. 

CP:  Right. My main focus was winning Miss USA. I mean, that was my main goal. I’ve always been very competitive and I was just kind of going along with this and saying to myself, “I guess this is just what you’re supposed to be doing.” But there comes a point when you have to draw the line and you have to really be who you are and not let anyone else change you. 

LV:  Young girls are going to continue to look up to you as a role model. What’s your best advice for young girls who want to follow in your footsteps and become a strong woman who stands up for what she believes in? 

CP:  That wherever you get your courage from – mine comes from my faith, my family, my supporters – always have the courage not to be intimidated. Don’t ever feel like you have to be silent for standing up for what you believe in. And that’s what’s so great about this book, Still Standing, is that people will see that I am still standing after what anybody can throw at me. They can throw whatever they want at me. They can call up my old boyfriends and ask them if they have dirt on me. They can come up with pictures of me and attack me, attack my family. That’s fine, they can do all of that, but I am still standing. And I think it infuriates some people that I am. But my advice to young women would be to just be you. Just be who you are and stand up for what you believe.

Miss Prejean was fired from her role as Miss California USA in June of this year, following several months of controversy over her answer at the Miss USA pageant regarding same-sex marriage. Lewis claimed Miss Prejean’s termination was due to a violation of contract.  Miss Prejean’s complaint will refute that allegation, and demonstrate that both the chronology and factual evidence clearly show she lived up to all her contractual obligations, but was fired, harassed and publicly attacked solely due to her religious beliefs. 

Charles S. LiMandri, attorney for Miss Prejean, released the following statement regarding the complaint: 
“Over the past two months we have worked hard to provide overwhelming evidence that Carrie Prejean did not violate her contract with Miss California USA and did not deserve to have her title revoked by Keith Lewis.  We will make the case that her title was taken from her solely because of her support of traditional marriage. Keith Lewis has refused to clear her good name or even to admit any wrongdoing.  Therefore, Carrie Prejean is left with no alternative but to take her case to court where she expects to be fully vindicated.” 

RE: Carrie Prejean v. Keith Lewis, Shana Moakler, and K2 Productions, Inc.

Dear Mr. Shields:

We are writing in response to your letter of June 13, 2009.  There have been multiple written communications from me to you since the date of that letter addressing these various issues in detail, and which we will not repeat at this time.  Since your letter was released to the press, however, with the attachments, we feel it necessary to address some of the more egregious misrepresentations made in that letter.

1.         There Was No Unauthorized Participation in Literary Works.

As you well know, both Keith Lewis and Donald Trump had given preliminary approval to Ms. Prejean to write a book.  In fact, Mr. Trump’s office had circulated a draft amendment to her contract for that purpose at the time that she was terminated – - without warning and without just cause.  She did not yet have a contract with a book publisher at the time she was terminated.  She did have a contract with a literary publicist to find a publisher for the book, which was the source of the confusion about this issue.  Without giving Ms. Prejean or me an opportunity to clarify the matter, she was abruptly terminated.  The fact that she was working on a book was well known and was discussed multiple times, both verbally and in writing. Obviously, the book had not yet been published, and there can be no material breach of contract at issue here.  Therefore, the reason given for her termination as being based in part upon her doing a book deal is a complete and utter pretext. 

2.         There Were No Unauthorized Public Appearances.

As you also know, in a telephone conference with eight people on April 29, 2009, including you and me, it was agreed that Ms. Prejean could make public appearances, in her individual capacity, so long as she did not use the Miss California USA title or wear her tiara and sash.  Moreover, any public appearances she allegedly made without the advance authorization of your clients, were deemed by Mr. Trump not to be contract violations at the press conference he held on May 12, 2009.  Since that day, Ms. Prejean has not made public appearances unless they were authorized by either your client or Mr. Trump.  Your client has falsely accused her of doing a Shape Magazine interview, and appearing on Fox and Friends, without prior authorization.  In both cases, it was Mr. Trump who asked her to do those interviews and who set them up for her.  As to the radio show you referenced in your letter, in which you indicated that she would be reading from a “show biz script,” she did not do that interview after your client would not authorize it.

3.         Ms. Prejean Did Not Refuse Reasonable Public Appearance Opportunities.

Mr. Lewis has falsely stated that Ms. Prejean refused to make over 50 public appearance requests after May 12, 2009.  Initially, he was suggesting that she did not appear at scheduled events.  He later recanted that statement and said that she did not fail to appear at any scheduled events, but simply declined numerous requests to attend them.  We asked you to provide us with a list of those public appearances and you did so with a three-page itemized list which you attached to your letter and which was circulated to the media.

We have determined that the list was fabricated from the Hollywood News Calendar, a daily publication of events that are generally open to the public.  None of the events listed on the Hollywood News Calendar were specific invitations to Carrie Prejean or anyone else.  We are attaching to this letter a copy of an e-mail from Mr. Lewis’s assistant, Lilly Colon, dated December 1, 2008.  That short e-mail makes it clear that beauty pageant winners merely had the opportunity to request to attend the events listed on the Hollywood News Calendar and, if timely notice were given, then your clients’ office would attempt to see if they could get tickets.  There is no indication that those would be official events where the pageant winners would actually wear their tiaras and sashes.  More important, their appearance at any such events was entirely left up to the beauty pageant winners.  [Ed. note: a copy of this email can be found at the conclusion of this correspondence.]

We are attaching with a copy of this letter the Hollywood News Calendar that Keith Lewis sent Ms. Prejean on May 15, 2009. We have matched up the events listed on the Hollywood News Calendar with the false list of alleged missed appearances that was prepared by your client, and widely circulated to the media.  The list prepared by your client falsely states that Ms. Prejean “declined” events on the calendar, which she was never specifically asked to attend.  This is analogous to the situation in which someone does not attend a wedding which they read about in a public announcement in the newspaper.  It would obviously be highly misleading to suggest that such a person failed to attend the wedding after receiving a personal invitation.  Your letter, and the attached list of alleged missed appearances, makes it look like Ms. Prejean received a personal invitation and specifically declined to attend each listed event.  The fact is, she simply did not respond to a notice in a newsletter which listed over 50 events, many scheduled at the same time.

We have learned that your client participated in a conference call on May 15, 2009, the same day that he sent the Hollywood News Calendar to our client.  Also participating in that call were three people working for the public relations agency that was representing my client at the time.  All three of those people distinctly remember Keith Lewis talking about sending Ms. Prejean an offer to do a Playboy photo shoot, “so when they take her title away, she doesn’t sue me.”  This clearly shows that your client was trying to “set-up” our client for termination at the time he sent her the Hollywood News Calendar, and the offer to appear semi-nude in Playboy – - all on May 15, 2009.

4.         There Was No Lack of Cooperation by Carrie Prejean.

As you know, we have previously discussed that we envisioned that Ms. Prejean would be attending events as Miss California such as Rotary conventions and avocado festivals.  In my e-mail to you on May 16, 2009, after Ms. Prejean indicated that she did not think it was appropriate for her to accept Mr. Lewis’s invitation to attend a gay documentary in Hollywood promoting same-sex marriage, I confirmed the following:  “Carrie would be happy to attend, upon reasonable notice, all requests for media interviews, community affairs, parades, festivals, events of service and charitable organizations, sporting events, and any other such activities that can be expected to promote and further the intended purposes of Miss California USA.”  It was not my client’s job, as Miss California, simply to help your client promote his personal or business interests as a Hollywood agent and producer, or gay activist.

It was your client who failed to cooperate with my client in allowing her to do the types of activities one would expect in her role as Miss California.  In fact, my client had to go to Mr. Trump just to get your client to agree to let her meet and greet the troops returning to port on the USS Ronald Reagan.  Mr. Lewis also made it difficult for her to schedule her attendance at the Special Olympics, even though she had been volunteering there for several years.  If there was frustration reflected in some of my client’s e-mail correspondence with your client, that is because he was prohibiting her from making the kinds of public appearances that she wanted to do in service to the community.  Furthermore, your client was trying to wrongfully profit off of my client’s participation as Miss California, in violation of her contract, by taking twenty-percent (20%) of any appearance fee she would earn, such as at the Las Vegas jewelers convention she attended at his request.

5.         Ms. Prejean’s Termination was Retaliatory.

Ever since Carrie Prejean gave an answer at the Miss USA Pageant in support of traditional marriage, she has been continuously and viciously attacked.  Instead of coming to her defense, your client apologized to her attackers for her honest answer at the Pageant.  In fact, Mr. Lewis released a statement the next day stating that he was “personally saddened and hurt” by her response.  Both Keith Lewis and Shana Moakler joined with the attackers in renouncing my client for her views in favor of traditional marriage.  They even released her confidential medical information to the press to embarrass her.

Moreover, even when it appeared as though Mr. Trump would allow her to keep her crown at a press conference scheduled for May 12, 2009, they tried to upstage him, and insert Tammy Farrell in Ms. Prejean’s place, at their own press conference held on May 11, 2009.  At that time, they falsely accused Ms. Prejean of most of the same contract violations.  This is the case even though, on May 12, 2009, Mr. Trump exercised his authority in finding that there were no such contract violations.  That did not stop Shana Moakler, however, from resigning as a Co-Executor Director of the Miss California pageant and continuing to attack Ms. Prejean from the sidelines.  Her close friend, Keith Lewis, did not resign, but obviously decided to continue to undermine Ms. Prejean at every opportunity.  Both of them were bound and determined to get her fired and they have now finally gotten their way.  Moreover, they did not even have the decency to tell her or me that they were firing her before they released it to the press.

6.         Summary and Conclusion.

Carrie Prejean’s good name has been tarnished by your clients’ false and defamatory accusations.  Mr. Lewis has circulated to the media, with your letter, a list of alleged missed appearances that is based on the Hollywood News Calendar he sent her on May 15, 2009.  The way he has presented this information is, for all intents and purposes, an outright fraud.  Mr. Lewis’s statements, in the presence of three witnesses, the same day that he sent out the Hollywood News Calendar, is an admission that he was even then scheming to take away her title.  Our client has experienced harm to her reputation, her standing in the community, and she has suffered severe emotional distress.  Please view this letter as a last opportunity for Mr. Lewis to retract the defamatory statements made against my client and to seek to restore her good name.  If he does not comply, I will have no alternative but to recommend that Ms. Prejean proceed to do so through litigation.

Sincerely,

LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES S. LiMANDRI, APC

Charles S. LiMandri

—

[Ed. Note: Below is the copy of the email referenced in point #3 in the letter above.]

——– Forward Message————- From:  Lilly-Colon

Date:  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 12:49 PM Subject: FW: HNC 11/28/08

To: Chelsea Gilligan

Hello queens!

I’m ,going to be forwarding you the Hollywood News Calendar, it’s comes in daily Mon-Fri. You’ll get one for the hollywood news calendar and 1 for the entertainment news calendar. Let me know if you see any events that you would like to attend .and we’ll do our best to get you in. The more notice the better. You can simply copy and paste the listing you want to attend. Make sure you copy the date as well. You may need to remind me to forward to_. you every now and then, sometimes I get busy.

It’s going to be an exciting year! ! ! ! Hope the 2 of you had. an amazing Thanksgiving. I bet it was nice to eat! lol We are so lucky to have the 2 of you as our queens this year. I feel like you guys are ready for nationals already.       (

Chelsea, when you get a chance will you send me your bio? Thanks doll!

xoxo

Lilly Colón

K2 Productions, Inc.

But In an exclusive interview with Big Hollywood, Ms. Prejean’s attorney, Charles S. LiMandri, who says that he and his client learned of the firing during a phone call from gossip site TMZ, vehemently denies those allegations.

“She greeted troops, ‘Fox and Friends,’ she was lined up for the Special Olympics this weekend. It is pure BS.”  He continued that neither the Miss California USA Pageant organization nor Miss USA owner Donald Trump had ever taken issue with the frequency of her media appearances: “They never said it was a problem.”

According to Mr. LiMandri, the real reason behind the firing was three-fold: His client’s beliefs regarding same-sex marriage, a possible book deal with his client (a deal approved by Mr. Trump), and the fact that Ms. Prejean refused to pose for Playboy Magazine or participate in a docudrama promoting same-sex marriage. 

The email below [click to enlarge], provided to Big Hollywood by Mr. LiMandri, is from Mr. Lewis to Ms. Prejean inquiring about her interest in doing a photo shoot for Playboy Magazine involving “partial nudity.”:

This second email [click to enlarge], also provided by Mr. LiMandri, is the response from Mr. LiMandri to Timothy Shields, an attorney representing Mr. Lewis:

Mr. LiMandri states that Ms. Prejean was always enthusiastic about making appearances as Miss California and representing the Miss California pageant organization and the state of California. “They are not being honest that she wasn’t cooperating,” Mr. LiMandri said.

As an example of the excitement and enthusiasm Ms. Prejean’s appearances generated, Mr. LiMandri forwarded the following email [click to enlarge] from a participant in last month’s Las Vegas Jewelers’ Convention:

Mr. LiMandri stated emphatically, “[Ms. Prejean] is being persecuted for the [same-sex marriage] answer she gave. They wanted her out of the way so that she couldn’t be standing in opposition to their same-sex marriage agenda.  And a lot of people in the gay community wanted her out. I told the Miss USA organization, she is not anti-gay, she is just pro-traditional marriage. She never wanted to be part of that fight. She got thrown into it when Perez Hilton asked her that question.“

The proposed book deal might have been another factor in Ms. Prejean’s firing. According to Mr. LiMandri, Ms. Prejean had been given permission from Donald Trump to go ahead with the deal but this may have alarmed Mr. Lewis and Pageant co-director Shanna Moakler: “Keith Lewis made a decision that he was going to fire her because Lewis did not want her wearing a crown and sash while she was doing a book deal telling the truth about him.”

Contributing writers: Alexander Marlow and John Nolte

“Keith Lewis cannot deny the truth:  He did not bother to pick up the phone and tell Carrie Prejean before he alerted the media.  He did not pick up the phone and call me to let me know she was fired either. Both of us learned about it from media reports. He claims he wants to “move on” yet he continues to attack not only me, Carrie and even Carrie’s pastor, Miles McPherson.  This tells you everything you need to know about Keith Lewis and the way the pageant has treated Carrie from day one.”

Here’s LiMandri’s statement from yesterday: Carrie has Fulfilled her Pageant Obligations.

The Match Up: 

• The Beauty Queen – Ms. Carrie Prejean – Miss California, now Miss USA 2009 Runner Up.
• The Drama Queen – Perez Hilton. He has a B.A. in drama, is a gay activist blogger, and co-opted his professional name from a celebrity with whom he has a personal fascination. He was a judge in the Miss USA pageant.

Ms. Prejean was the underdog. She’s not a slugger. She’s just a dumb blonde, right? 

Mr. Hilton, on the other hand is the notorious gay activist blogger – a verbal street brawler known for picking and winning fights by jumping victims in back alleys and clobbering them with whatever he can get his hands on  - pipes, tire irons, beer bottles.  

On the surface, the pageant appeared to be a well refereed event. Even Hilton looked freshly scrubbed and donned a toothy grin throughout the evening. But the fix was in. What we didn’t see was that Hilton had a horseshoe hidden in his right glove. This was one match he wasn’t going to lose – not on national television. He figured he had one punch and it had to be a knock out. 

There they stood, face to face – both representing different philosophies, opposing beliefs. The moment dripped with anticipation. Then Hilton threw his punch. Gay Marriage! Of course. What else from Hilton. Yes, the hotly debated issue of redefining marriage to include gay unions was supposed to be a knockout punch. But it only grazed her chin. She stumbled slightly, recovered and shot back her reply. According to her, the definition of marriage should remain as it has been defined throughout the history of our country – between a man and a woman. 

She knew it wasn’t PC. But she was, after all, Miss “California” -  a state that just voted (Prop Eight) to uphold the current definition of marriage. She is also a woman of faith – holding a belief consistent with the majority of the state of California (not to mention consistent with Pres. Obama and Hillary Clinton). But more importantly, her answer was authentically truthful to her own personal beliefs. 

The camera cut to Hilton in time to catch his jaw drop – his face crestfallen. If you listened closely enough you could even hear the horseshoe fall out of his glove.  This was clearly not the answer he expected. Who in this world has the temerity to proclaim a personal position so politically incorrect on national television? Apparently there’s one person – Ms. Prejean. Doesn’t she know that people like Hilton can destroy her? That she might never work in this town again? And even more tragic, she may never get invited to a Janeane Garofalo Oscar party?  

For Ms. Prejean, it was clearly a seminal moment in her life – with defining clarity and simplicity she expressed a personal belief. Standing for something, and telling the world doesn’t need to be complicated. I wonder if any of our politicians were watching? 

Now if Hilton had even a modicum of self respect he would have gone home and licked his wounds. But pathetically, Hilton couldn’t contain his rage. It’s as if he decided to continue his brawl in the parking lot where he caught up to Ms. Prejean and sucker punched her getting into her car. And while she was down, he continued to wail on her.   

You’ve all seen the clips by now. Hilton viciously berated Miss California on TV and YouTube, calling her a “bitc*” and reportedly a “cun*”. And where does this rage come from? Ms. Prejean shared her beliefs.  

As America struggles to reclaim its soul and find true leaders for the future, regardless of political philosophy, you have to admire any display of bravery, courage, or sacrifice made on behalf of “principle.” 

Miss California has transcended beauty queen status. She is now much more than a pinup girl for our soldiers. She is a soldier – and leading a charge. 

As for the pageant “judge”, he set aside any pretense of objectivity and egregiously used his position of power to advance his cause. When he ranted that if Miss California would have somehow won the crown, “I shi* you not, I would have gone up on that stage, I would have snatched that tiara off her head and run out the door!!!” – you have to ask.  Who at the pageant organization thought it was a good idea to make a bigoted heterophobe a pageant judge? 

Maybe that person is Keith Lewis- co executive director of the pageant – or maybe his boss Donald Trump? Trump ducked responsibility for Hilton’s assignment on Bill O’Reilly’s The Factor. Lewis stated (speaking of himself) that he “…is saddened and hurt  that Miss California believes that marriage belongs only to a man and a woman.” Well I’m saddened that Keith Lewis is saddened. 

Help me out here. The directors of the pageant are offended when a contestant expresses a belief contrary to theirs? – a viewpoint which by the way is mainstream – nothing radical about it. So, help me out here. Is being guilty of such an offense a de facto disqualifier for contestants? If so, disclose it to the contestants in advance. Flat out tell them what beliefs are acceptable to the committee, and which ones are not – which religions and churches can be attended and which ones can’t.   

Hey, why not issue a booklet to contestants containing all the acceptable answers and viewpoints of the committee. Give them time to consider the option ahead – when they’re in the spotlight and they may need to choose to abandon their core principles for the sake of receiving the tiara……. Tiara, or beliefs. 

In fact, just send out a mass email to the country with all the acceptable positions of the committee and forego the charade of running the pageant as a propaganda machine? 

Maybe the title of this piece should have been Beauty and the Beast. And the Beast isn’t confined to Perez Hilton. You decide.

The reigning Miss California, Carrie Prejean, has sinned mightily.  Not in any of the traditional ways, at least, not that we know of, but that is no matter because she has not sinned against a traditional God.  She has done something far worse.  She has sinned against the true almighty.  She has sinned against Pop-Culture.  For those of you who still cling to antiquated, intolerant, patriarchal religion, you may have a difficult time understanding why Miss Prejean must be made example of.  First, you might not understand how she has made herself unclean to begin with, and even if you could understand it, you might not understand why she must be cleansed with her own suffering and blood.  Of course, that is because you believe in a loving, righteous God who is full of grace.  Please, grow up.  Quit trying to force your religion on the rest of us.  The only good evangelicals evangelize in the name of our new King, and She is right displeased with Miss Prejean.

In fairness, Miss Prejean was already on pretty shaky grounds with The Culture.  After all, she is a beauty queen.  I will readily admit to not knowing much about beauty queens, other than what The Culture has allowed me to know, of course, which is that they are, to a person, uniformly white, upper-class, insecure, and vapid creatures with hardly a thought in their pretty little heads.  Most of them, if not all, have overbearing, hypocritical stage mother’s who don’t so much love them as they objectify them and live their own lost youth’s vicariously through them.  They have no personal values, of course–any pretense to the contrary is merely a contrivance meant to earn them points with the judges, a series of sex-addled male miscreants who are themselves secretly doing drugs and sleeping with half of the young fools anyway.  So, clearly Miss Prejean was already in need of some serious penance.  At a minimum, she needs to get an STD, make a sex-tape, and grow up, as one Cultural Rabbi recently prescribed a wayward daughter, but there was still hope.  Not anymore.

Miss Prejean’s greatest crime is not her looks, or her vestigial belief that a woman can be beautiful and feminine and still successful and proud.  Her greatest crime is answering a question honestly.  When asked by judge Perez Hilton, a well-known expert on women and on politics, whether or not she believed in same-sex marriage–the kind of deeply personal question it is perfectly appropriate to ask a stranger on national television–Miss Prejean slipped up and told the truth.  She didn’t make a political statement, or call for any sort of action against anyone, she merely said that, based on her personal beliefs and background, she thinks marriage should be between a man and a woman.  Gasps!  Wailing!  Gnashing of teeth!  You mean she actually agrees with the vast majority of human beings who have ever lived on this planet about gender roles in marriage???  I’m sorry to say that seems to be the case.  Now you know why she must be destroyed.

Keith Lewis, who runs the Miss California competition quickly denounced Miss Prejean’s heresy, lest any of the Almighty’s wrath fall on him for being a poor steward of the fragile young ladies in his care:

As co-director of the Miss California USA, I am personally saddened and hurt that Miss California believes marriage rights belong only to a man and a woman.  I believe all religions should be able to ordain what unions they see fit. I do not believe our government should be able to discriminate against anyone and religious beliefs have no politics in the Miss California family.

Saddened that she executed her first amendment rights, not by volunteering a political view-point, but simply by honestly answering a direct question?  Amen, brother.  I’m glad we asked you.  Oh wait, we didn’t…  You didn’t have to get on a stage in front of thousands of people and get asked a loaded question to which there is, quite clearly, only one appropriate answer.  No bother.  At least you got in your lashes early.  Your trespasses are forgiven.  But as for Miss Prejean, there is no amount of blood-letting that will purge her sins.  Our God’s tolerance, which She prides Herself on, does know some limits.

Now, there are those out there who will say that Miss Prejean has been done a terrible disservice.  After all, if there is only one correct answer to a question, it seems a bit disingenuous to ask it.  Almost as though the question is less of a, well, question, meant to ascertain a point of view, and more of an old-fashion loyalty test, meant to vet out apostates before they are allowed to ascend too far in this world.  You might be thinking Miss Prejean should not have been asked such a question in the first place, should not have been set-up to fail, should not have been tested thus.  You might feel that by asking someone an honest question, the questioner is inherently signifying that they don’t have a strangle-hold on truth, and that to bait someone with an interrogative sentence that is really no question at all is actually dishonest.  If so, don’t worry.  Her-highness already has Her priesthood scouring the applicable political contribution databases and your name will soon be known to all of us so that your chastising may begin.  There is likely still hope for you, provided you make the appropriate prayers and offerings, and of course, that you stop watching those accused beauty pageants.  Unless of course it is for the purpose of judging those poor, beautiful girls as they walk through the un-enlightened darkness.