Thursday, June 22, 2023

Tara Reade is the Giant African Snail

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!  

I hope Tara leaves some food for the Russian people.   She's like the Giant African Snail that's been discovered in Florida.  

This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

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." 


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. 

And for those who don't know TPUSA:


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 College Collegian, 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]

In 2018, the Southern Poverty Law Center's Hatewatch documented TPUSA's links to white supremacists.[145][146]

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.

A summary of the bill can be found here.

The Senator's remarks can be downloaded here



The following sites updated:

Wednesday, June 21, 2023

Applauding Lashrecse Aird and Jill Biden

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. 

This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Wednesday, June 21, 2023.

Starting with Julian Assange. Yesterday, on DEMOCRACY NOW!, there were four segments noting the passing of whistle-blower Daniel Ellsberg including this one:

AMY GOODMAN: 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.

DANIEL ELLSBERG: 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.

AMY GOODMAN: 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?

DANIEL ELLSBERG: 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.

AMY GOODMAN: 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.

DANIEL ELLSBERG: 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.

AMY GOODMAN: 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 ( 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 was first hired as a fundraiser for the Williamson campaign in late April and then took on the top job in May after then-interim campaign manager Peter Daou stepped down along with deputy campaign manager Jason Call.

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.

In related news, WORLD NEWS notes:

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.” 


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.


The following sites updated: