I see
'survivor' Tara Reade is still reTweeted convicted pedophile and
registered sex offender Scott Ritter. She's full of s**t. If she was
raped, I don't care at this point. I was and I don't reTweet sex
offenders. Equally true, she's saying Joe raped her -- after
Hill-Thomas. That would have been a huge story. She chose not to tell
it until over 22 years later? I believe the response is, "Sure, Jan."
So she's Tweeting.
White privilege.
Moscow,
Russia lunch: Passion fruit lemonade, sparkling water from Russian Lake
District, fresh salads and crab dish with flavored wasabi. This meal
approximately $20 plus a tip.
Showing off my nails as just received a beautiful French manicure under
$30. Showcasing the reasonable prices. At a outdoor cafe beautiful day.
Can
you imagine immigrants from Central America with no family in this
country blowing $30 on a manicure after spending $20 for themselves on
lunch?
Me neither but that's Tara, the ultimate Karen.
And, of course, she'd Tweet about food. Here she is Tweeting again:
Russian grocery store.
Sanctions not having affect that I can see natural produce no genetic engineering or pesticides. Monsanto is banned. Next photo artisan chocolate!
Thursday, June 22, 2023. Today we focus on a Senate Judiciary Committee
hearing where a hate merchant emerges from what appears to be a
lavender marriage to preach hate and lies.
A
hearing took place yesterday in the Senate. I'm not interested in
closet cases so if it's a hearing about LGBTQ+ people and you're
lifelong closet case? You're over fifty and can't come out of the
closet we should just take that to mean you're a damn liar. There's no
other word for it. You're an elected member of Congress and you're too
scared to come out of the closet? Yeah, we're not going to waste my
time on your pitiful ass or waste my time indulging your own
self-loathing. I usually try to be fair in covering these hearings but
in this case, no, I'm not worried about FAIRNESS FOR A CLOSET CASE.
There's a lot to cover from the hearing, we'll probably have to do it
today and tomorrow and I'm not wasting my time on a closet case.
Today,
we'll mainly focus on two lying witnesses. It was the Senate Judiciary
Committee which is chaired by Senator Dick Durbin.
Chair: Dick Durbin: This weekend, cities, including Chicago, across the
globe, will host their annual pride parades to celebrate LTBGQ
families, friends and neighbors. In just a short time, relative short
time, a few decades, our nation has made remarkable progress in
protecting the rights of LGBTQ Americans. Eight years ago this month,
for instance, eight years, OBERGEFELL V HODGES which made marriage
equality the law of the land. And last year, on a bipartisan basis,
Congress codified these protections into law with THE RESPECT FOR
MARRIAGE ACT. While Pride Month is an opportunity to celebrate these
milestones, today we also remember that Pride began with an act of
resistance. Back in 1970, the first ever pride parade was organized to
mark the one year anniversary of The Stonewall Uprising. It was a
protest led by gay, transgender and gender non-confirming Americans who
refused to accept an unjust system of laws and united together to change
not just America, but to change the world. Today, we draw from that
spirit to unite together in acknowledging and defending the rights of
LGBTQ Americans because right now extremist politicians across America
are targeting LGBTQ youth along with the medical professionals who care
for them and the parents who love them. I want to turn to a video that
shows the story of one of those parents and his plea for the leaders in
his home state of Missouri to stop these attacks.
At this point, a video was played
for the Senate. I'm going with the ACLU version which is slightly
different from the one he played by two sentences. HRC and others have
their videos up and, again, with one or two sentences difference in
terms of how it was edited.
And here's the father speaking in the video:
Brandon Boulware: I'm a lifelong Missourian, I'm a lawyer, I'm a
Christian, I'm the son of a Methodist minister, I'm a husband. I'm the
father of four kids -- two boys, two girls -- including a wonderful and
beautiful transgender daughter. Today happens to be her birthday and I
chose to be here. She doesn't know that. She thinks I'm at work. I
came here today as a parent to share my story. One thing I hear when
transgender is discussed is, "I don't get it. I don't understand." And
I would expect some of you to have said that and to feel the same way.
I didn't get it either. For years, I didn't get it. For years, I would
not let my daughter wear girl clothes. I did not let her play with
girl toys. I forced my daughter to wear boy clothes and get short
haircuts and play on boys' sports teams. Why did I do this? To protect
my child. I did not want my daughter or her siblings to get teased.
And truth be told, I did it to protect myself as well. I wanted to
avoid those inevitable questions as to why my child did not look and act
like a boy. My child was miserable. I cannot overstate that. She was
absolutely miserable. Especially at school. No confidence. No
friends. No laughter. I -- I can honestly say this, I had a child who
did not smile. We did that for years. We did that against the advice
of teachers, therapists and other experts. I remember the day everything
changed for me. I'd gotten home from work and my daughter and her
brother were on the front lawn. And she had, my daughter had sneaked on
one of her older sister's play dresses and they wanted to go across the
street and play with the neighbors' kids. When it was time for dinner,
I said, "Come in." She asked can she go across the street? I said
"no." She asked me if she went inside and put on boy clothes could she
then go across the street and play? And it's then that it hit me. My
daughter was equating being good with being someone else. I was
teaching her to deny who she is. As a parent, the one thing we cannot
do, the one thing, is silence our child's spirit. My child was
miserable. I cannot overstate that. She was absolutely miserable. And
so on that day, my wife and I stopped silencing our child's spirit.
The moment we allowed our daughter to be who she is, to grow her hair,
to wear the clothes she wanted to wear, she was a different child. It
was immediate. It was a total transformation. I now have a confident, a
smiling, a happy daughter. She plays on girls' volleyball teams, she
has friendships, she's a kid. I came here today as a parent to share my
story. I need you to understand that this language, if it becomes law,
will have real effects on real people. It will effect my daughter. It
will mean that she cannot play on the girls' volleyball team or dance
squad or tennis team. I ask you please don't take that away from my
daughter or the countless others like her who are out there. Let them
have their childhoods, let them be who they are. I ask you to vote
against this legislation.
These are serious issues and Senator Durbin noted that:
Already this year, our nation has seen a wave of anti-LGBTQ bills. More
than 525 have been introduced in 41 states -- many of them specifically
targeting our transgender youth. Some bills seek to ban gender
affirming care while others are set to dictate what sports kids can play
and what bathrooms they can use. But all of them are part of the same
concerted effort: Exercising the power of government to target children.
At the same time, leaders of the far right are promoting anti-LGBTQ
rhetoric. During this year's Conservative Political Action Conference,
one speaker was applauded when he declared, and I quote, "Transgenderism
must be eradicated." We must reject this divisive and hateful rhetoric.
And at this point, I'd like to remind our colleagues: Our children are
listening and they are in danger. In fact, today transgender youth are
at the most risk of homelessness, depression and death by suicide. So
when these young people who are already struggling hear politicians
amplify hateful rhetoric that denies their very existence, what message
does it send? We have a responsibility to support all of our children
no matter how they identify. This morning across America, families are
meeting with doctors and being told that they must make critical
decisions, life and death decisions, about surgery and medical treatment
for their children. These are personal and family moments which the
parents will never forget. I know, I've been there. But increasingly,
state legislatures have decided that the decisions will be subject to
regulations and criminal punishment by the government. You saw the
video of the Missouri father. Does he sound like a radical who's trying
to experiment with his child's future? Not to me. He sounds like a
father who resisted acknowledging the real condition of his child until
he realized he was wrong. I'm sure it was a painful labored process
Immediately after a mincing person felt the need to talk about our children.
Our
children? Have some. Then come talk about our children. Until then,
you don't anything about children. It is amazing the level of control
and hatred being imposed by childless hate merchants who have never
parented. You people need to just shut up, that's all there is too it.
Just shut up.
You're not put in the position
by your own choice since you've chosen not to raise children. So stop
pretending you know how to parent because you don't. You're happy to
tell others how to parent but, again, you don't know a damn thing
because you've never done it. If you had, you'd be far less hateful and
a little more understanding of what children are and that children
include all kinds -- yes, trans children are children. No, despite what
Marjorie Taylor Greene says in one hearing after another, all children
are not straight and White.
Let's start with a
liar. Matt Sharp is with the Alliance Defending Freedom -- a right-wing
hate group that spews lies automatically. Let's note one of his lies.
Now
the hearing was entitled Protecting Pride: Defending the Civil Rights
of LGBTQ Americans. Grasp it? Matt didn't. I guess if you're stupid,
your career options are severely limited and you go with hate merchant.
In
his submitted written statement, Liar Matty wrote, "The harms go on:
Lorie Smith, owner of website-design company 303 Creative, is awaiting a
decision from the U.S. Supreme Court over whether Colorado’s SOGI law
can compel Lorie and her fellow Coloradans to speak messages they don’t
believe. Lori, who is awaiting a decision right now from the Supreme
Court is hoping the Court will uphold the freedom of all Americans[.]"
No,
she's not. Let's stop pretending. Lori is trying to pursue the avenue
that Jonathan Turley has promoted pro bono. Fortunately for America,
Turley is not as smart as he thinks he is. If we had a functioning
Supreme Court, the case would not have reached them.
Liar
Matt Sharp: For example, Colorado officials are misusing a state law
to censor Lori Smith owner of website design company [we're not
promoting her company] and require her to create designs that violate
her sincere beliefs about marriage. Lori, who's awaiting a decision
right now from the US Supreme Court is hoping the Court will uphold the
freedom of all Americans to speak what they believe without fear of
government punishment.
No law's been misused. That's a lie. Lori doesn't create website designs for marriages. That's a lie as well.
And
that lie is why her case shouldn't even be heard. There has been no
action against her, she does not do what she's suing for. She has no
standing -- no legal standing. And we have maintained that for over a
year. If you missed it recently, the Court just sent a case bye-bye
noting the plaintiff did not have standing. That's what it should
legally do with Lori as well.
We're not
talking about Matt's misguided and harmful opinion. We're talking about
facts. Matt's lying before Congress and should be punished. He knew
not to put it in writing because someone would have checked it and
corrected him when the hearing was held.
My
opinion is that Lori's hate is not excused by religion and that if she
offers a public service, she has to offer to all and not discriminate.
My opinion.
My telling you the facts that she
has no standing and has suffered no legal harm at present so she has no
case? Again, facts. Matt's a liar and can't get through his opening
statement without lying.
Let me
also be clear on another issue. I thought we'd all know this by the
time we were adults because we start out as children. Apparently, we
don't all learn basics or we just want to lie and pretend we don't.
Matty wanted you to know that freedom of speech was violated. T-shirt
wise.
You all know, I'm sure of the 27th
amendment where, in 1976, young Bradley Smith was sent home for wearing a
Farrah Fawcett t-shirt, the one of her with the red one-piece bathing
suit. The school felt that it violated their dress code. His parents
pursued the matter all the way up to the Supreme Court where, in a
five-to-seven verdict, the majority opinion written by Rehnquist, it was
decided, "The nipple shall be liberated" and there was great rejoicing
across the land as Farrah's clothed but visible nipples could be
displayed on every campus.
If you didn't get it, that's all made up. We didn't have 12 members on the court.
Now
students were sent home -- and always have been and probably always
will be -- when it's decided that their clothing is inappropriate for
their campus.
There is no real freedom of
speech on campus. That's true even of college. The strongest rights
students have in terms of free speech have traditionally revolved around
the issue of journalism -- such as the yearbook or a paper. With
regards to clothing? An item of clothing only has to be determined by
school officials to be "disruptive." Doesn't matter if it's Farrah's
lovely and athletic body (Farrah and Cheryl Tiegs should get credit for
transforming Americans notions on how women could look) or if it's a
statement -- true or false -- printed on a t-shirt. It only has to be
determined that the clothing could cause disruption on the campus. That
is what the courts have always held when it comes to student clothing.
Matty doesn't know this because he's understanding of the law is severely limited by his apparent addiction to lying.
In most hearings, he would stand out for his lying. In this one, he was rolled over by a liar surpeme.
There's an ugly girl born every minute. Or in Hate Merchant Riley Gaines case, born again.
She's
the loser that came in sixth in a swim meet and they tried to be kind
and pretend she came in fifth but you can't be kind to hate merchants.
Beating Riley at fifth place was Lia Thomas. Lia is trans. Four other
women also beat Riley. They are not trans.
Riley is a loser and, as Ruth noted last night, appears to be married to a gay man. Oh, Riley, it's just not your decade, hon.
(As Ruth notes, Marcia has repeatedly covered Riley. If you're new to that Hate Merchant, check out Marcia's coverage.)
Yesterday,
Riley took her ugly lie face to the US Senate Judiciary Committee and
lied. No surprise. She's been lying ever since she lost to five
women. That's what liars do, they lie. Riley lying comes as easy to
her as looking ugly and flat chested.
I have neither the time nor the desire to note and debunk everyone of Riley's lies.
Let's
establish what a hateful little liar she is. Wearing more makeup than
any actress playing a whore would dare, she declared before the Committee, "I don't
believe trans athletes should be banned from sports" and that she "just
want[s] everyone to compete where it's fair and where it's safe. I
don't understand why that's overly controversial."
It is controversial. Period. Forget overly and the liar Riley is among the ones that makes it so.
She wants everyone to be able to compete, she lies. She wants everyone to be treated with respect, she lies.
"Lia
Thomas is not a brave, courageous woman who EARNED a national title.
He is an arrogant, cheat who STOLE a national title from a hardworking,
deserving woman."
That's her Tweet. She's got it pinned to the top of her Twitter feed.
First, that's
her sentence and her poor grammar -- no comma is needed between
"arrogant" and "cheat." Cheat is a noun and arrogant is the adjective.
Don't they teach English in KKK Hicksville?
Second,
Lia is a woman. Don't pretend you respect and love and care when you
are a hateful little _____ [use every word of choice there -- myself,
I'm going with Cher's favorite curse word].
You don't love anyone but yourself. Your a failure and a liar and you misgendered Lia.
They
let you get away with that at your MAGA rallies and the places where
you endorse Doo-Doo Ron Ron DeSantis. But, no, you don't get away with
it in the real world.
Nor do you get away with lying about feminism.
Lia,
she wanted to insist to a possible closet case on the Committee, was
'mansplaining.' And feminism, she insisted is not "a fluid term."
Yes,
feminism in the 70s had some struggling with transgender issues.
Sometimes it was the very issue of transgender and sometimes it was
someone begging to be made fun of. Such as the woman who felt the need
to play daintier than thou and got mocked by Nora Ephron for claiming
she knew nothing about cars anymore after her surgery. She seemed to
feel that, because she was born male, now being a woman she really had
to overdue it.
In fairness
to her, she grew up in a different time and probably didn't see as many
butch women as there are today. If she were alive today, she could see
Riley and grasp that dainty and feminine don't define a woman. Thanks,
Riley, for demonstrating that so well.
Life
is about growing up -- all of us. So while some feminists did have some
issues adjusting, they long ago grew up. Germaine Greer? Slut feminism
isn't feminism to must of us. Germaine was an awful woman long before
the world realized she was a TERF. Lillian Roxon was an actual
feminist. Lillian tried to be friends with Germaine, even found her
lodging when she visited the US. Nothing was ever good enough for
Germaine. And, buy a clue, feminists aren't rushing to publish in
magazines with titles like SCREW.
The feminist movement -- even Gloria Steinem -- long ago came to terms with reality and grasped that trans women are women.
Those
of us who are actually feminists don't need lies from Riley or to be
told how things should be by a greedy little ---- who never did a thing
for anyone else and seeks to pursue her own self-actualization and
self-focus and self-everything. Me me me me, says Riley, and, no, she's
not practicing her musical scales.
Riley
wants to pretend she's a feminist but she belongs to ("I am an advisor
for") the historically anti-feminist Independent Women's Forum.
Sidebar:
They're transphobes and hate merchants who are part of the attacks on
the LGBTQ+ community. I believe it was two weeks ago that I announced
sadly that I would no longer be noting Bonnie Erbe's TO THE CONTRARY.
It's a great show that focuses on women's issues. It features a wide
range of women's voices. That I was okay with. I stated two weeks ago
that I had learned more and I was not going to platform the show
anymore. Bonnie was not the problem. But her guests from Independent
Women's Forum. They lie and they deceive. They use Bonnie's show to
portray themselves as normal. While behind the scene, they're plotting
and focused on destroying LGBTQ+ rights. This is a cabal far bigger
than the one that tried to take down Bill Clinton. They have various
people fronting as something other than hate merchants who are under
orders not to speak of LGBTQ+ issues but instead appear reasonable and
reasoned to get media access. They have attorneys who present as left
-- even though Lawrence Tribe, for example, can't stand them -- but
they've cultivated long standing relationships with the extreme
right-wing Federalist Society. This is kept hidden from the American
people. So much is kept hidden because like most crooks, they work in
darkness. Lawrence Tribe is right to especially hate one of them. This
did not just suddenly happen. It was plotted in secret and planned for
years.
That's why I'm
being very clear that I am not platforming people if they're not
defending LGBTQ+. I don't know who to trust. See "" for that
discussion. Sam Seder grates on my nerves. I'm not trying to insult
him right now. But I posted him Tuesday. And will post him again.
He's defending LGBTQ+. If you're not, you're probably not going up
here. Probably? One YOUTUBER e-mailed that he's gay. I actually
already knew. I am confused as to why a grown man on the left can't say
the words -- "Why can't I say the word?" as Ellen DeGeneres' character
asked in "The Puppy" on ELLEN -- but he's still young. It's not like
he's a certain elderly Texan who still can't come out. 80 years and
counting and never married but we're never supposed to point that out
or, as Molly Ivins like to point out, there's not an LGBTQ+ bookstore in
Texas that doesn't have autographed books by him despite the fact that
he's not doing book events at those stores because he's that deep in the
closet.
I trust BLACK
POWER MEDIA, THE KAREN HUNTER SHOW, even THE VANGUARD, for example
because they've already gone on record by what they address on their
programs. But if you're being silent -- after all these attacks this
year alone -- then I'm not going out on a limb for you or telling others
to trust you. You better represent or you better get used to people
concluding that you're an enemy to LGBTQ+ people.
Back
to liar Riley. She didn't tie with Lia. She lost to Lia. I don't
care about her qualifier of "one hundredth of a second." You were after
her. You lost to her. You're a loser. I can't imagine that concept
is new to you -- you grew up with a mirror, right?
Taking
time out from what appears to be a lavender marriage, Riley wanted to
insist to the Committee, "Having only one trophy, the NCAA handed it to
Thomas and told me I would go home empty-handed because Thomas needed to
hold the trophy for photo purposes. I was shocked. I felt betrayed and
belittled, reduced to a photo-op. But my feelings did not matter.
What mattered to the NCAA were the feelings of a biological male."
Oh, the horror.
Riley,
are you lying now or were you lying then -- you know, when you first
spoke to the press and before you became a hag for right-wing media? Because your story keeps changing.
And I
checked with NCAA friends. That's not what you were told. Lia beat
you. They were being kind because you were a big baby. They told that
they only had five trophies and they were kind enough to say they'd send
you one. You told them that was "perfectly fine." Remember that,
Riley? Because they do.
You render that and everything else that took place with a skewed meaning because you do love to play the victim.
I
guess that makes sense. You can't play the winner and you can't play
the beauty so I guess the only role left for you is victim.
No,
your feelings don't matter. You came in sixth. That's reality. They
shouldn't have babied you. They should have just said, "Riley, you know
how you're ugly and hoped you could make up for it by focusing on
sports? Well maybe you can find another interest to focus on?"
She
further testified that it was awful for her to share a locker room with
Lia due to Lia's male genitalia. I'm so glad, Riley, that you appear
to have married a man who is not going to show you his genitalia.
Should keep you sane. Or what passes for sane when it comes to you.
She did not give consent!!!! She did not give consent!!!! And it was not a safe space for her!!!!
As
she herself admits, "you're undressing quickly in front of one
another." Exactly, so look the other way or, better yet, don't be
sneaking peaks at one of your competitor's genitals. What kind of perv
are you, Riley? Everyone else was there to swim but you're apparently
slack jawed, open mouthed gawking at the bodies of people around you.
That must have made them very uncomfortable.
Riley wants you to know there were tears from unnamed "from finishers who missed being named an All-American by one place."
Huh?
By one place?
Don't you mean you? Why are you referring to yourself in the plural?
She
wanted the Committee to know she hears agreement from "gay, lesbian,
and trans-identifying Americans." Oh, Riley. Is Caitlyn Jenner trying
to groom you? That might happen. Self-loathing Republican and all.
But
most healthy gay, lesbian and trans Americans -- not 'identify,' just
trans -- are not agreeing with you. In fact, you saw what the LGBTQ+
community thinks of you when you showed up in San Francisco to preach
your hate, remember?
And
where is that lawsuit because you never filed it. I know why. You
weren't physically assaulted. Campus police told me that.
But again, you suck at sports and you're butt-ugly so victim really is the only role left for you.
She
wants to talk about "the science." Don't you love it when a jock on a
scholarship wants to lecture others. So we're talking science. Where
do you stand on COVID? I know where your buddies at TPUSA stand. How
much are they paying you, Riley? Or are they just covering the cost of
travel and housing for your Hate Tour? Be honest when it's time to
file with the IRS.
In December 2017, The New Yorker published an article by Jane Mayer showcasing
interviews with former minority members of TPUSA. Former staff members
said they witnessed widespread discrimination against minorities in the
group, and stated "the organization was a difficult workplace and rife
with tension, some of it racial."[26][133] One
former employee, an African-American woman, said she was the only
person of color working for the organization at the time she was hired
in 2014; she then said that she was fired on Martin Luther King Jr. Day.
The article also revealed text messages sent by Crystal Clanton – who
was a leading figure in the organization and served as the group's
national field director for five years – to another Turning Point
employee saying "i hate black people. Like fuck them all ... I hate
blacks. End of story." Kirk responded to the revelations by saying that
"Turning Point assessed the situation and took decisive action within 72
hours of being made aware of the issue."[26] The article also noted that Kirk had explicitly praised Clanton in his book Time for a Turning Point,
saying that she had been "the best hire we ever could have made", and
that "Turning Point needs more Crystals; so does America."[26]
In an April 2018 article titled "Turning Point USA Keeps Accidentally Hiring Racists", HuffPost reported
that the woman hired to replace Crystal Clanton had a history of using
racial slurs, particularly against African-Americans, on Twitter before
deleting her account. In response to the reports, Kirk referred to the
individual in question as "a former employee" in his official statement
(without clarifying when she had been fired), and Turning Point issued
an internal memo announcing that all current and new staff would face
social media background checks.[134]
In the Hillsdale CollegeCollegian,
opinions editor Kaylee McGhee wrote an article titled "Charlie Kirk and
TPUSA aren't conservative, as real conservatives already knew". In the
article, McGhee referred to TPUSA as a "reactionary cancer" rather than a
group supporting real conservatism that is "supposed to preserve the
timeless principles of liberty and equality for all".[135] In June 2018, conservative radio talk show host Joe Walsh resigned from the TPUSA board because Kirk was too closely tied to Donald Trump.
Walsh said: "It's so important to not be beholden to politicians, but
to be beholden to the issues ... When Charlie went to work for Trump,
that crossed that line. You can't advance Trump and advance these
issues."[136]
During
October and November 2019, Kirk launched the Culture War college tour
of speaking events with appearances from many conservatives such as Donald Trump Jr., Lara Trump and Kimberly Guilfoyle.
These events were frequently targeted by homophobic and antisemitic
members of the alt-right and far-right who consider TPUSA to be too
mainstream and not sufficiently conservative. Concerted efforts were
made by this group to ask leading questions during the Q&A sections
on controversial topics such as Israel and LGBTQ issues in order to
challenge the extent of the speakers' views.[137]
In November 2019, the Dartmouth Review called
TPUSA an organization that promoted Charlie Kirk and Donald Trump
first, rather than conservative values. The article added "True
conservatives must eventually outgrow TPUSA and devote their efforts
elsewhere. We must challenge ourselves by pursuing an environment of
rigorous inquiry, instead of being coddled by the intellectually devoid
echo chamber of TPUSA, compromising our values for recognition."
Anti-Defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Center[edit]
In 2019, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has called TPUSA an alt-lite organization.[143] Both the ADL and the Southern Poverty Law Center have criticized TPUSA for affiliating with activists from the alt-right and the far-right.[144] The
ADL has also reported that the group's leadership and activists "have
made multiple racist or bigoted comments" and have links to extremism.[5]
Let's
note Martina Navratilova quickly. She's a TERF. She's an idiot.
Riley testified repeatedly about the 'threat' that a trans woman
presents to her in the dressing room. Many of you may remember when
these hate merchants tried to say that of lesbians. Now they go for the
trans women and idiots like Martina rush to help them out. Again, the
same argument was once used against lesbians.
We'll pick up on the hearing tomorrow. Today, we'll wind down with this from Senator Tammy Baldwin's office:
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) today joined Senators Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Corey Booker (D-NJ) in introducing the Equality Act
– historic, comprehensive legislation to ban discrimination against
LGBTQ+ Americans, just as religious, racial, and ethnic discrimination
are illegal everywhere in the United States.
“If we want to live up to our nation’s ideal of true equality, we
must address the fact that we have been coming up short. It is wrong
that in a majority of states, LGBTQ+ people can be denied an apartment,
cut from a job, thrown out of a store, or face other forms of
discrimination just because of who they are or who they love,” said Senator Baldwin.
“And that’s why I am proud to join my colleagues in introducing the
Equality Act to protect LGBTQ+ Americans against discrimination and live
up to our nation’s ideals of freedom and equality.”
The Equality Act would amend the landmark federal
anti-discrimination laws to explicitly add sexual orientation and gender
identity to longstanding bans on discrimination in employment, housing,
public accommodations, jury service, access to credit, federal funding,
and more. It would also add protections against sex discrimination in
parts of anti-discrimination laws where these protections had not been
included previously, such as public accommodations and federal funding.
“Generations of Americans have marched, voted, organized, and raised
their voices to move us closer toward a more perfect union with freedom,
equality, and opportunity for all,” said Senator Merkley. “We
all go to work and school, go home, and go shopping, and none of us
should have to keep our families hidden or pretend to be someone we’re
not to do those things. Yet in some states, Americans can still be
evicted, be thrown out of a restaurant, or be denied a loan because of
who they are or whom they love. To realize the vision of America as a
land of freedom and equality, we must be willing to take the steps to
bring that vision closer to reality, and that’s exactly what the
Equality Act does.”
“The flood of legislation in state after state seeking to undermine
the rights of LGBTQ+ Americans is antithetical to our nation’s
fundamental ideals and only serves to foster more hate, division, and
prejudice,” said Senator Booker. “Congress must act to
ensure that no person is discriminated against based on their gender
identity or who they love. That is why I am proud to join again with
colleagues to reintroduce the Equality Act, landmark legislation that
will guarantee that LGBTQ+ Americans are protected under federal law and
move us one step closer to having a nation that truly lives up to our
ideals of liberty, freedom, and justice for all.”
LGBTQ+ equality received a huge boost across the nation last year when President Biden signed Senator Baldwin’s bipartisan Respect for Marriage Act
into law, enshrining federal protections for same-sex and interracial
marriages. Further, in 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Bostock v. Clayton County that
workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender
identity is prohibited as a form of sex discrimination under Title VII
of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. However, this court ruling has
not yet been nationally applied to other areas of potential
discrimination—including housing, public accommodations, jury service,
access to credit, and more.
LGBTQ+ Americans around the country are facing an uptick in
discrimination and dangerous state-sponsored legislation. State
legislatures have introduced nearly 500 pieces of legislation that target LGBTQ+ rights. Despite Americans’ increasing support of LGBTQ+ rights
and protections, the majority of states currently do not have
fully-inclusive non-discrimination laws for members of the LGBTQ+
community.
U.S. Representative Mark Takano (D-CA-39) led the introduction of the Equality Act in the House.
The full text of the Equality Act can be found here as introduced in the Senate, and here as introduced in the House.
Let me applaud a Democrat, Lashrecse Aird. She won her primary. Newsweek reports:
The
Democratic senator, one of the state's most controversial political
figures, was unseated by challenger Lashrecse Aird, a 36-year-old former
state legislator who has declared herself to be an unapologetic "100%"
supporter of abortion rights.
Morrissey,
a political centrist and a Catholic who said he doesn't personally
support abortion, was deeply criticized by fellow Democrats in Virginia
for saying he would have voted with Republicans to
pass further restriction on abortion access in the narrowly divided
Senate—which is why his defeat at the Democratic primary is an issue for
Youngkin too now, who has just lost a key supporter across party lines
to his policies restricting abortion access in the state.
As this CBS News video notes, over 57% of Americans say that overturning Roe v Wade was a mistake. It was a huge mistake.
And while I'm applauding, let me give a hand or two to First Lady Jill Biden. AP reports:
Jill Biden said Tuesday that the consequences for women of losing the constitutional right to an abortion "go
far beyond the right to choose” as she hosted a conversation with four
women, including a Texas doctor, who shared emotional stories of being
denied necessary reproductive care.
The first lady invited
the women from Texas, Florida and Louisiana to the White House to help
highlight the anniversary Saturday of the Supreme Court decision
overturning its 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, which established a
constitutional right to an abortion.
The
ruling last June left it up to individual states to set their own
abortion policies, and 18 of them — including the home states of Biden's
guests — have put abortion bans in place.
“The
consequences of these bans go far beyond the right to choose,” the
first lady told the women, as she detailed examples of women being
denied access to medication or are being forced to go to other states
for care. And some doctors, she added, are withholding treatment
“because they don't know which procedures are legal.”
“And
like those who are with us today, far, far too many women are
experiencing devastating consequences to their health, their fertility
and their lives,” said Biden, who came of age when abortion was illegal
before it was became the law of the land in 1973.
Not a Democrat (I'm a Green) but I'll happily applaud the two Democratic women above.
Starting
with Julian Assange. Yesterday, on DEMOCRACY NOW!, there were four
segments noting the passing of whistle-blower Daniel Ellsberg including this one:
AMYGOODMAN: Two years later, in 2019, I spoke
to Daniel Ellsberg a day after the Justice Department charged WikiLeaks
founder Julian Assange with 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act
for publishing U.S. military and diplomatic documents exposing U.S. war
crimes. Assange, who’s locked up in the Belmarsh prison in London, faces
up to 175 years in prison if extradited to the U.S. and convicted here.
DANIELELLSBERG:
Yesterday is a day that will be — live in the history of journalism, of
law in this country and of civil liberties in this country, because it
was a direct attack on the First Amendment, an unprecedented one. There
hasn’t actually been such a significant attack on the freedom of the
press, the First Amendment, which is the bedrock of our republic,
really, our form of government, since my case in 1971, 48 years ago. But
this is — I was indicted as a source. And I warned newsmen then that
that would not be the last indictment of a source, if I were convicted.
Well, I wasn’t convicted. The charges were dropped on governmental
misconduct. And it was another 10 years before anybody else faced that
charge under the Espionage Act again, Samuel Loring Morison. And it was
not until President Obama that nine cases were brought, as I had been
warning for so long.
But my warning really was that it wasn’t going to stop there, that
almost inevitably there would be a stronger attack directly on the
foundations of journalism, against editors, publishers and journalists
themselves. And we’ve now seen that as of yesterday. That’s a new front
in President Trump’s war on the free press, which he regards as the
enemy of the people.
AMYGOODMAN:
And the Trump administration saying Julian Assange is not a publisher,
is not a journalist, that’s why he is not protected by the First
Amendment?
DANIELELLSBERG:
In the face of this new indictment, which — and let me correct
something that’s been said just a little wrong by everybody so far. He
doesn’t just face 170 years. That’s for the 17 counts on the Espionage
Act, each worth 10. Plus, he’s still facing the five-year conspiracy
charge that he started out with a few weeks ago. I was sure that the
administration did not want to keep Julian Assange in jail just for five
years. So I’ve been expecting these Espionage Act charges. I really
expected them later, after he was extradited, because adding them now
makes it a little more complicated for Britain to extradite him now, as I
understand it. They’re not supposed to extradite for political offenses
or for political motives, and this is obviously for both political
motives and political offenses. So, from Julian Assange’s point of view,
it makes extradition a little more difficult.
Why then did they bring it right now? Well, coming back to the case,
by the way, that I faced, I faced only 11 [Espionage] Act charges, each
worth 10 years in prison, plus a conspiracy charge worth five. So I was
facing exactly 115 years in prison. He’s facing exactly 175. Now, that’s
not a difference that makes any difference. In both cases, it’s a
question of a life sentence.
I think that the reason they brought these charges so soon, because
they had until June 12th, was to lay out — the necessity to lay out for
extradition all the charges they plan to bring. And I don’t assume these
are the last ones. They’ve got a couple weeks left to string up some
new charges.
They started out with a charge that made Julian look something other
than a normal journalist. The help to hacking a password sounded like
something that, even in the Digital Age, perhaps most journalists
wouldn’t do, and that would hope to separate him from the support of
other journalists.
In this case, when they had to lay out their larger charge, this is
straight journalism. They mention, for instance, that he solicited
investigative material, he solicited classified information — terribly,
he didn’t just passively receive it over the transom. I can’t count the
number of times I have been solicited for classified information,
starting with the Pentagon Papers, but long after that, and that’s by
every member of the responsible press that I dealt with — the Times, the Post,
AP, you name it. That’s journalism. So, what they have done is
recognizable, I think, this time to all journalists, that they are in
the crosshairs of this one. They may not have known enough about digital
performance to help a source conceal her identity by using new
passwords, as Julian was charged with. They may not be able to do that.
But every one of them has eagerly received classified information and
solicited it.
AMYGOODMAN:
We end our show with Daniel Ellsberg in his own words, May 18th, 2018,
when I spoke to him at a Right Livelihood laureate gathering at
University of California, Santa Cruz. I asked him what message he had
for government insiders who are considering becoming whistleblowers.
DANIELELLSBERG:
My message to them is: Don’t do what I did. Don’t wait 'til the bombs
are actually falling or thousands more have died, before you do what I
wish I had done years earlier, in ’64 or even ’61, on the nuclear issue.
And that is, reveal the truth that you know, the dangerous truths that
are being withheld by the government, at whatever cost to yourself,
whatever risk that may take. Consider doing that, because a war's worth
of lives may be at stake. Or in the case of the two existential crises
I’m talking about, the future of humanity is at stake.
So many graduating classes, I think, have been taught — have been
told, year after year for half a century, that they face a crossroads or
that much depends on what they do. That’s no exaggeration right now.
It’s this generation, not the next one, the people living right now,
that have to change these problems fast. And I think truth-telling is
crucial to mobilize that.
AMYGOODMAN:
Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg died Friday at the age of
92, just months after being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. Our
deepest condolences to his family, his wife Patricia, his children
Robert, Mary and Michael, his grandchildren and his great-granddaughter.
That does it for our show. I’m Amy Goodman. Thank you for joining us.
But most of those today loudly hailing Ellsberg as an "American hero" have been far more reluctant to champion the Ellsberg of our times: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
For years, Assange has been rotting in a London high-security prison while the Biden administration seeks his extradition
on charges that ludicrously equate his publication of the Afghan and
Iraq war logs - a modern Pentagon Papers - with “espionage”.
Like Ellsberg, Assange exposed the way western states had been
systematically lying while they perpetrated war crimes. Like Ellsberg,
he was fraudulently labelled a threat to national security and charged
with espionage. Like Ellsberg, if found guilty, he faces more than 100
years in jail. Like Ellsberg, Assange has learned that the US Congress
is unwilling to exercise its powers to curb governmental abuses.
But unlike Ellsberg’s case, the courts have consistently sided with
Assange’s persecutors, not with him for shining a light on state
criminality. And, in a further contrast, the western media have stayed
largely silent as the noose has tightened around Assange’s neck.
The similarities in Assange's and Ellsberg’s deeds - and the stark
differences in outcomes - are hard to ignore. The very journalists and
publications now extolling Ellsberg for his historic act of bravery have
been enabling, if only through years of muteness, western capitals’
moves to demonise Assange for his contemporary act of heroism.
Let's
move over to US political campaigns and since Mike Pence's one lonely
supporter actually wrote the public e-mail (common_ills@yahoo.com) to
say that Mike doesn't get enough attention, let's offer two Tweets from
Paul Rudnick.
Moving on. The Merry Mariannes. They love them some Marianne
Williamson. They lie for her. We told you before she lost her first
campaign manger that the campaign was out of control. You should have listened. She's now lost another. Brittany Gibson (POLITICO) reports:
Marianne Williamson has lost her second campaign manager in as many months in what has proven to be a rocky 2024 presidential bid.
Roza Calderon’s departure was announced Monday on a small left-wing podcast, the Vanguard, and
independently confirmed by two sources to POLITICO granted anonymity to
discuss internal staffing dynamics. It is unclear whether she was
fired, quit or if it was a mutually agreed upon departure.
Calderon’s
experience in such roles was limited. She ran for Congress in 2018 but
lost. During that campaign, she was sentenced to probation after
allegedly stealing money from a local Democratic Party group to
spend on gas, movie downloads and BottleRock music festival tickets.
She had also embellished her resume calling herself a director of
development when she was in fact a contractor at the progressive
nonprofit Our Revolution.
People,
there's less than a year to go before the primaries (and caucuses) take
place. That means Marianne only has months to go through 39 or 40 more
campaign managers. Stop standing around, e-mail those resumes now.
Somewhere, the fictional character of Murphy Brown is noting that
Marianne goes through campaign managers like Murphy went through
secretaries.
Marianne can be nice if she sees you as an equal but she doesn't see many as an equal. That's reality.
Doesn't mean she couldn't be a good president. Does, for me, mean she's got more to prove.
The
Merry Mariannes have had to pretend that her stance on Ukraine is the
same as their own. She can be very seductive. But what issue does she
lead on?
The war against
LGBTQ+ people? Nope. I believe she's devoted 58 seconds to it online
in a video. I know she had an embarrassing (and shameful) answer when
she had a speaking event and only spoke to it because she was directly
asked about it.
So
she's
not an answer on war as evidenced by her comments on Ukraine. And she
wasn't an answer on war in 2020 either but everyone wants
to forget that. And she's not making any effort to address the war on
LGBTQ+ -- considering the hogwash she served to those suffering from
AIDS in the 90s, she really does need to make amends and make a real
effort at addressing this section of the population.
They
tried to pimp her as a better alternative to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and
did so because they didn't know Marianne's own vax history.
The Merry Mariannes tried so hard to pimp her. Maybe they can walk away now and invest everything in Cornel West?
He doesn't appear to have any answers either.
Like
Marianne, he's never held public office and is pretty much his own
creation. Like Marianne, he's a personality attempting to pose as a
politician.
I'm hearing a
lot of garbage when Cornel's name comes up -- or "Cornell" as some
'lefties' Tweeting and doing YOUTUBE programs keep misspelling it.
Here's
the biggest piece of garbage that his supporters are trying to trick
the American people with -- that would include Jill Stein and Ajamu
Baraka, by the way.
Cornel's run is creating a third party! Making a third party stronger!
No, it isn't.
I guess if you're an idiot or a know-nothing you can pretend that's true.
But
I voted in 2000 (for Al Gore) and I remember that argument. Ralph
Nader was going to build the Green Party. And I remember it with
Cynthia McKinney (I voted for Cynthia) and again with Jill Stein and
then again with Jill Stein. We're leaving out David Cobb
intentionally. He wasn't a real candidate -- though he does hold the
'honor' of being the first politician to write this site about how
unfair we were too him. It was the same day that Richard Perle e-mailed
to hiss about this site's opposition to the Iraq War. That was
actually fun because I said, "Who's Richard Perle?" -- and, small world
that it is, happened to say it to a friend who knew Richard . . . from
high school. That was a fun reply to dictate and, as I said in that
e-mail, "Crawl back under your rock, you're not needed." We still have
that post in the chamber in draft form -- a wonderful look back at
Richard Perle in high school with him just as hideous as you'd expect.
Some day we may post it here just for laughs (ours) and embarrassments
(his).
So I don't agree with Howie Hawkins on Ukraine. He's the only Green Party candidate, however, that's tried to build the party.
Celebrities of various standing showed up to run and then lost and left.
Why is that?
In part, it's because most of them were not Green Party members. You know, like Cornel isn't.
He's
70 years old but wants the party's nomination. The party he's never
deigned to join. But he was the nominee of The People's Party and then
found out their issues so he ran over to The Green Party and, let's be
honest, Ajamu, Jill and Chris Hedges tried to strong-arm the party to
make him the nominee. No. He's a candidate for the nomination. He is
not the nominee and they are not going to toss aside their rules -- nor
should they -- for anyone.
But Cornel's going to build the party.
Because he's a celebrity, apparently.
He's not Nina Turner, for example. Someone with real ideas about how to govern. And someone with actual experience.
This
is an out of touch (see previous remarks at this site regarding "crack
pipe" 90s phrase
and he's trying to charm a 10-year-old by talking about Tony! Toni!
Tone!) elderly man who has never held office and can't respond to a
question. He takes the topic, not the question, and extrapolates about
whatever he wants for five or so minutes. And pitches himself forward
and back in a rocking motion very often during this process making me
wonder about cognitive
issues.
Jill Stein did
nothing to build the party. Jill
was a loser in 2012 and she was a loser in 2016. Worse, she folded tent
and went home after both elections and couldn't be bothered with
working on building a party.
Nor
will Cornel. Cornel's got his own celebrity and fame to attend to. If
he should end up the nominee, he'll weaken the party (probably do some
sheep herding -- the way Jill did in 2012 -- but remember we never dare
question Dr. Jill) and leave it high and dry.
The
Green Party needs to put in a clause -- too late for this cycle -- so
that in 2028, the eventual nominee has to pledge to at least a year of
post-election day activity to work on building the party.
The
Green Party has great members. I really thought we'd be getting to the
point, for example, where Kat Swift would be a nominee.
But
remember, Green Party members, you're only there to vote. You're not
good enough, no matter how many years you've been a member of the party,
to win the nomination. They'd rather hand it to non-members.
Pathetic.
Watch
as The Merry Mariannes start to slowly -- with their lips moving --
read the writing on the wall and shift to Cornel! Or, as some of his
White supporters spell it -- in their Tweets and on their YOUTUBE
programs -- "Cornell." They're all about democracy, they claim.
And what's more democratic than someone repeatedly changing their party affiliation to run for president?
The
Green Party should not let Cornel turn them into a joke. But maybe
that's what they want to be? The eternal and holy fool of the US political
system?
Again,
I do not agree with Howie on Ukraine. But I will not spit on the work
he's done in the years since the 2020 election. Unlike everyone who
came before (even Cynthia), he didn't fold up and go home. He continued
to work. He wrote columns. More to the point, he did -- has done --
at least one video a week, every week, since the 2020 election
addressing Green Party issues. Wish he didn't think rooting for Ukraine
was a Green issue but he's addressed other issues as well.
Ralph didn't do that, no one but Howie did. Ralph also didn't become a Green.
And I don't know why you would have a Green Party for decades now and yet constantly go with outsiders.
In
fairness, Greens across the country are being very clear that Cornel is
going to have to campaign for the nomination and may or may not get
it. There is great anger about the backdoor dealings of Jill and
Ajamu. That is good news because tricksters in any political party
should not be welcome
Some
are not grasping what I'm saying in these comments about candidates.
Anyone who wants to run for office should. But I'm not here to pat your
back and tell you "good job." If you do a good job, I'll gladly note
it. Cornel has not done a good job -- and should be dancing with the
one who brung him (The People's Party). Marianne has not done a good
job. They can stay in the race as long as they want -- for Cornel, he's
looking at another year of campaigning. Maybe Kent Mesplay or Malik
Rahim will again seek the nomination or some others who are members --
and have been -- of The Green Party.
In
2000, as they pimped this is about building!, the Green Party got 2.7%
of the vote. The next cycle (2004), David Cobb couldn't even muster
1%. In 2008, Cynthia got .12% of the vote. In 2012, Jill got .36% of
the vote and 2016 she finally made it to 1%. Building the party?
Every
election has seen the nominee get a lower percentage of the vote than
Ralph. So maybe cut the nonsensical claim that Cornel's all about
building the party. We've heard that claim repeatedly and it didn't pan
out.
Let's
turn to the Republicans for a moment. Donald Trump is no longer the
only one willing to call out Doo-Doo Ron Ron De Santis. Kimberly Leonard (BUSINESS INSIDER) reports:
Republican presidential candidate Chris Christie dunked on Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis this week over his bitter crusade against Walt Disney World as an example of the party wasting its time on "small" political issues.
Republicans,
he said, should instead be "arguing about and being daring" on policies
involving China, economic security, reducing the import of petroleum,
and expanding charter schools.
"What
we are wasting our time on is talking about, 'Is it OK for Disney to
oppose a bill in Florida and should they be penalized for it? And does
that prove you're really a tough guy or does it just prove that you're
not conservative in terms of the way you think government should
operate?" the former New Jersey governor told the "Ruthless" podcast in an interview that aired Monday, without using DeSantis' name.
If
Nikki Haley had the guts to call out Little Ronnie, she might see her
support increase. But as long as she plays it timid, she gives voters
every reason not to support her because no one votes for a weakling, a push over to become president.
Large majorities of U.S. adults across different racial, ethnic, and
religious identities oppose religious-based discrimination against
LGBTQ+ people, according to a new Williams Institute report.
Even majorities of Republicans oppose religious-based
anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination, the report found. Its findings suggest that
Republican-led attacks on LGBTQ+ civil rights — many of which are
couched in religious terms — are actually opposed by most American
adults.
The data came from the Williams Institute’s September 2022 survey of a nationally representative sample of 1,003 adults.
Approximately 84% of survey respondents said they opposed
religious-based denials of healthcare to LGBTQ+ people, 74% opposed
religious-based anti-LGBTQ+ employment discrimination, and 71% opposed
business employees denying services to LGBTQ+ people based on the
employees or employer’s religious beliefs.
Over 80% of respondents in all non-white racial and ethnic groups
opposed the use of religious beliefs to deny LGBTQ+ people business
services, medical care, and employment. About 70% of white respondents
felt the same. Female, younger, or college-educated respondents were
also more likely to oppose religious-based anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination
than respondents who are men, older in age, or non-college educated.
A consultative process among Catholics around
the world has led the church to take steps to include women in
decision-making positions, accept “radical inclusion” of the LGBTQ+
community and change the authority of bishops Are. ,
The Vatican on Tuesday released a summary of
the consultation process, a project that has lasted two years and will
form the basis of discussions for a synod between bishops and laity in
October. The event, one of Pope Francis’ priorities, reflects his
vision of a Church oriented more toward the flock and not so much toward
the clergy.
Joni Ernst
is a Republican serving in the US Senate. Her office e-mailed the
following to the public account (and that is what it's for -- veterans
issues, Iraq, etc):
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), the first
female combat veteran elected to the U.S. Senate, is leading a
bipartisan charge to amend military records of female veterans who
deployed alongside Special Forces in Afghanistan and Iraq to ensure they
accurately reflect their work as members of Cultural Support Teams
(CST). These female veterans shared similar operational experiences as
their male peers but have not been recognized for their combat service,
denying them rank, benefits, and critical healthcare services.
“Make no mistake – women have been wearing our nation’s uniform and
serving honorably in war zones long before our military removed the ban
on women serving in combat,” said Senator Joni Ernst. “As
the first female combat veteran to serve in the U.S. Senate, I’m proud
to fight for the hundreds of women who played critical roles in
Afghanistan and Iraq and ensure they receive the care and recognition
they have always deserved.”
Background:
Before female servicemembers were able to formally serve in combat
roles, CSTs were deployed to combat zones with Special Operations Forces
(SOF) in order to engage with female populations, greatly expanding
operational and intelligence capabilities.
This bipartisan effort would require the review of the military
records of CST women veterans who served from 2010 to 2021 in support of
Special Operations Forces. The bill is named the Jax Act after Jaclyn “Jax” Scott,
who served on a Cultural Support Team and has been leading the fight to
get female combat veterans the recognition and benefits they earned.
Senators Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), and Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) are leading the Jax Act alongside Senator Ernst.
natural produce no genetic engineering or pesticides. Monsanto is banned. Next photo artisan chocolate! 
