A Final Repudiation Of Phyllis Schlafly

I noted briefly a few nights ago that long time foe to equality Phyllis Schlafly had died.  As one might expect, many right wing and Republican outlets are praising her and some even stating that she "will be missed."  I for one will not miss her and, while I won't be drinking a champagne toast to her passing, I do think that the world became a slightly better place with her toxic message of division and hate with one less voice.  A piece on the Americans United for Separation of Church and State takes a retrospective on Schlfly and the misogyny she so long peddled.  She is a woman who wanted to re-criminalize homosexuality even though she had a gay child herself.  Not exactly a pillar of loving motherhood.  Here are some highlights from the retrospective:

“Today, Phyllis Schlafly died like she lived – with dignity and a smile,” wrote Ed Martin, president of the Eagle Forum, a group Schlafly founded. “Surrounded by her family, Phyllis passed away and entered her reward with the Lord. Her family, friends and staff will miss her. Her nation will be eternally grateful.”

Schlafly was best known for defeating the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in the 1970s, but her larger  mission was one of seeking to deny people their rights – just because those people failed to live up to her religious ideals.

In recent years, Schlafly’s Eagle Forum turned its ire on the LGBT community, with a flood of hysterical op-eds and articles. At one point, Schlafly even proposed impeaching judges who upheld marriage equality and called on Congress to cut off all federal aid to any state that permitted the practice.

Her nation will be eternally grateful? Sorry, but I have to disagree. Schlafly’s vision of America was one where right-wing Christians of her stripe – she was a traditionalist Roman Catholic but often sounded like a fundamentalist, Religious Right-style evangelical – ruled the roost. Others were second-class citizens. Most Americans aren't grateful for her tireless work to roll back women’s reproductive rights or the hate she spread against those Americans she derisively called “the gays.”

 

Firmly grounded in an “Ozzie and Harriet” mythology, Schlafly was clueless about the realities of modern life. In 1981, she told a U.S. Senate committee that women who are sexually harassed have only themselves to blame. Lecherous bosses, said Schlafly, “hardly ever ask sexual favors of women from whom the certain answer is ‘No.’ Virtuous women are seldom accosted by unwelcome sexual propositions or familiarities, obscene talk or profane language.”

She opposed equal pay for women, fought efforts to make child care more affordable and plentiful and opposed programs to give young people sex education in public schools. (Sex ed., she once opined, is “a principal cause of teenage pregnancy.”)

Schlafly’s views belong to an America of the past. They’re anchored in the America she idealized – the fake 1950 vision of a white, Christian nation where school kids prayed on command and God gave us nuclear weapons to scare off the Reds.

Schlafly’s Potemkin Village of 1950s nostalgia collapsed long ago. It collapsed when some Americans had the temerity to point out that the vision didn’t include them – and noted, by the way, the 1950s weren’t so great for lots of people: blacks living in the Jim Crow South, women fighting in court for the right to work in certain professions, Jewish families seeking the right to live in neighborhoods that sought to exclude them and atheists daring to speak against the “God and country” rhetoric of the Eisenhower Era, to name a few.

Phyllis Schlafly does not represent the future. Her vision is firmly grounded in the past, and, with luck, the nation will continue speeding past it so rapidly that soon none of us will even be able to see its vague outlines.

If you doubt that, simply look at the world around you. You will see that Schlafly’s vision has been repudiated. It was repudiated this morning when millions of women suited up for work in a myriad of professions. It was repudiated all over the nation by same-sex couples, now legally married, who woke up and started another routine day.

You can see the repudiation in the eyes of immigrant families working hard to make the American Dream real for them. It’s reflected in the faces of Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist and Wiccan public school students who long ago decided they won’t accept second-class status.

Schlafly dreamed of an America based on rejection and exclusion. That is not our America. Our America is better than Phyllis Schlafly.  . . . The story of America is not the story of Phyllis Schlafly. We have repudiated her narrow and mean-spirited vision. We know that it’s a relic of a nastier, more unpleasant time.  We won't go back there.

Yes, Phyllis Schlafly helped defeat the ERA. But she lost the larger cultural war. And for that, we can be truly grateful.

As one reader noted in an e-mail to me, Bette Davis is reported to have said about Joan Crawford: Joan Crawford's death "you're only supposed to speak good of the dead... so she's dead ~ good! Phyllis Schlafly is dead. Good!  It is far past time that Schlafly be recognized for the toxic individuals that they are and for good and decent people to call them out for what they are.  Schlafly damaged many lives and enriched herself in the process. 

Longtime Anti-LGBT Hate Merchant Phyllis Schlafly Dead at 92

Yes, I know it is poor form to speak ill of the dead, but when it comes to Phyllis Schlafly, it is difficult to say anything nice about a woman who  peddled so much hatred over the last four and a half decades.  She opposed equal rights for women and was an extreme homophobe and continued to market the lie that being gay was a choice and/or the result of poor parenting - even though she had an LGBT child of her own - to the bitter end.  Moreover, if one ever visited the Eagle Forum web page, the organization was largely a platform of out of control, self-congratulatory egomania.  It is sad, but I can only believe that the world will be a better place with her foul influence gone from the scene.  I hate too say it, but a heart, the woman was a white nationalist.  A CBS affiliate has these details:

Multiple sources are confirming to KMOX news that Phyllis Schlafly, has died.

Schlafly founded the Eagle Forum in 1972, a pro-family conservative group focusing heavily on social issues — it has about 80,000 members and, as of this week, Schlafly was still president.

“Phyllis Schlafly spent an astounding 70 years in public service of her fellow Americans,” said the Eagle Forum in a statement. “Her focus from her earliest days until her final ones was protecting the family, which she understood as the building block of life. She recognized America as the greatest political embodiment of those values.
 Schlafly’s organization has been split this presidential election — Schlafly supported Donald Trump, though many board members disagreed. She maintained her leadership of the organization.

She also fought nephew, Tom Schlafly, over the naming rights to his brewery in St. Louis. Schlafly contended her name juxtaposed with beer and libations would damage the conservative brand’s reputation. A judge disagreed.

 Schlafly was 92.

If there is a Hell, like the late Jerry Falwell, I suspect that Schlafly is now occupying her reserved seat.  While she constantly proclaimed her supposed Christian faith, there was little in her public actions that mirror Jesus' teachings in the Gospels. 

Ted Cruz’s Coup Against Right-Wing Queen of Hate

Over the years I have followed right wing :family values" groups to know what the enemy is up to so to speak.  One of the groups I have monitored is Eagle Forum - Phyllis Schlafly's organization that is steadfastly against women's rights, gay rights (even though Schlafy has a gay child) and which has a strong racist under current to it - like most lily white "Christian" organizations.  Moreover, Schlafly's an egomaniac with a ego as large as Donald Trumps - which is why she has been eager to endorse Trump's fascist agenda.  Now, in a delicious coup attempt, it appears that Schlafy is at risk of being dethroned from her organization by board members who support of Ted Cruz.  Making it more delicious, one of Schlafy's own children is seemingly are part of the would be palace coup.  Here are highlights from The Daily Beast:

One of the right-wing’s most prominent empires is reeling—and its president says it’s Ted Cruz’s fault.  

Eagle Forum, a conglomerate of conservative groups which anti-feminist icon PhyllisSchlafly started in 1972, has been rocked by inner turmoil over the last week that has pit family members against each other. 

And the group’s head, Ed Martin, says Cruz’s campaign is using its much-discussed “dirty tricks” to sow conflict in the organization as revenge for Schlafly’s endorsement of Donald Trump. 

Schlafly, one of conservatives’ most prominent and visible leaders, played a key role in blocking the passage of an Equal Rights Amendment, and her group claims 80,000 members.

Martin said the Cruz team set its sights on Eagle Forum when Schlafly endorsed the Texan’s opponent. And he said Cruz supporters in the organization leaked private emails to the campaign, and that Cruz’s campaign manager, Jeff Roe, confronted him about statements in the leaked emails.

Since the first Republican nominating contest, the Cruz campaign has faced allegations that its staff uses underhanded and shady tactics to pull off wins. Cruz himself apologized to then-candidate Ben Carson for an email that went to Cruz supporters the day of the Iowa caucuses suggesting Carson was about to pull out of the race. And Trump regularly criticizes Cruz’s personal integrity, leading rally crowds in chants of “Lyin’ Ted! Lyin’ Ted!”

Not everyone blames Cruz, of course. Adams and other board members—allied against Martin—adamantly dispute that 2016 politicking had anything to do with recent tensions. Nevertheless, the rift shows just how tense this election cycle has become for the Schlaflys, one of the conservative movement’s founding families—and just how fast seemingly unassailable organizations can descend into chaos.

[T]he board passed resolutions to fire Martin as president of that particular organization and to take control of its bank account, which Martin said holds $4 million. When that happened, Schlafly dissented, registering her support for Martin. Martin’s leadership of a separate Eagle Forum group went unchallenged. 

Martin’s sudden firing threw Eagle Forum into chaos, with the anti-Martin board members and Schlafly herself issuing separate statements with contradictory explanations of what went down. It seems likely that more fights will come as Eagle Forum’s board and leadership struggle for power.

For some, these fights are personal. One board member who voted to depose Martin, Anne Cori, is Schlafly’s daughter. 

Cori endorsed Ted Cruz in January. Fellow board members Cathie Adams, Eunie Smith, Rosina Kovar, and Carolyn McLarty have all endorsed the Texas senator as well.

Schlafly didn’t respond to multiple requests for comment from The Daily Beast. But in an interview with World Net Daily, she indicated that she thinks the group’s troubles are political payback. “This is a complete takeover attempt,” she told the site. 

In my view, Schlafy is one foul individual and the collapse of her organization would be a positive development for America.  The ultimate irony is that while she blathers about "family values," the groups actual values are akin to those of the notorious Borgia family in Italy.  

The Ugliness of America's Far Right Grows

The professional Christian set and similar self-anointed "patriots" that want to protect America from those they deem "other" - e.g., blacks, Hispanics, Jews, Muslims, gays, etc. - have always exhibited the worse traits of America.  Many of their forebears actively supported the Jim Crow laws and the criminalization of homosexuality.    Now, it the wake of the Paris terror attacks. they are proving just who horrible they are.  Not only are they seeking to block refugees from entering America, but they are stepping up their calls for the mass deportation of Hispanics.  Leading this charge is Phyllis Schlafly, one of the most self-centered, foul women in the nation.  World Net Daily, a/k/a Wing Nut Daily, give Schlafly a platform for her anti-nonwhite screed.  This is what America's conservative Christians now represent.  Here are highlights:  

Phyllis Schlafly, an icon of the conservative movement who has been active for half a century, has a solution to save America and solve its illegal immigration crisis: Load ‘em up on trains and ship ‘em out.

“Every time they say, ‘You can’t deport these people, in my mind’s eye, I see the picture of those railroad cars carrying the illegals out of our country when Eisenhower deported them. They say it was a failure. It wasn’t at all,” Schlafly told WND in an exclusive interview.

“In my mind’s eye, I see those railroad cars full of illegals going south. That’s what they ought to do.”

Schlafly was referencing the 1954 campaign in which President Dwight Eisenhower sent home 3 million illegal aliens and sealed the U.S.-Mexico border. 

“These ideas that they’re putting out, that we have some obligation to admit all these people, are just ridiculous,” she said. “We don’t have an obligation to admit anybody. A country that doesn’t have borders isn’t a country. We need to have borders.”

In fact, she says, the national sentiment on this issue explains why GOP front-runner Donald Trump is surging in the polls – far ahead of establishment candidates.

It is because of folks like Schlafly that I no longer call myself a Christian.  Today, to be a Christian often means one is a horrible person who wraps themselves in feigned religiosity while making a mockery of the Gospel message.

Christofascists Claim Americans' Moving Out of Marriage Equality States In Protest

Face of a bigot

I do wonder at times what kind of mind altering drug or what kind of severe head trauma some on the far right - especially amongst the "godly Christian" crowd - have suffered to result in their abject insanity and the completely out of touch fantasy world that they live in.  A case in point?   Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum.  In addition to all the other hate and intolerance the organization disseminates (when not as a worship service dedicated to Schlafly - who has a gay child, by the way), now claims are being made that Americans are moving from marriage equality states in protest over civil equality for gays.  She, of course, has no proof to back up the claim, but then she usually has no data to back up any of her insane claims.  The woman belongs in a mental ward in my view.   Right Wing Watch looks at Schlafly's latest batshitery:

In her latest radio commentary, Schlafly claims that “many Americans are dissenting with their feet, by moving away from same-sex marriage states and into the many states that continue to recognize the value of marriage as being between only one man and one woman.”

The liberal media must be covering up this mass exodus from marriage equality states, because we haven’t heard a single story of someone doing this. - See more at:

The Court held that because the U.S. Supreme Court had recently ordered that federal benefits be granted to same-sex couples who are married under state law, the civil union law in New Jersey was inadequate to ensure that homosexual couples in New Jersey are able to receive the same benefits as married couples.

There was no dissent from the New Jersey Court’s ruling, not even by Christie’s own judicial appointments. But many Americans are dissenting with their feet, by moving away from same-sex marriage states and into the many states that continue to recognize the value of marriage as being between only one man and one woman.

 Anything to whip up hysteria, play the Christians are being persecuted card and, most importantly, get cretins and the ignorant to send money to Eagle Form so that Schlafly can continue to live the good life.
 

Phyllis Schlafly

The Usual Far Right Suspects Stir Up Anti-Immigrant Hysteria

If there is any doubt that today's GOP base is anti-immigrant and basically racist, on needs to only look to the efforts of the always vile Phyllis Schlafly and Ann Coulter to cause the angry white base of the GOP grow even more hysterical.  The claim is that the Congressional GOP is about to sell out the party base and the nation as a whole if it approves any form of immigration reform.  Indeed, these two evil women want current immigration levels sharply cut back so as to stop what they perceive to be the "brown skin menace."  Here are excepts from Coulter's screed which will not doubt be picked up and parroted by many other hate merchants of the right:

As House Republicans prepare to sell out the country on immigration this week, Phyllis Schlafly has produced a stunning report on how immigration is changing the country. The report is still embargoed, but someone slipped me a copy, and it's too important to wait.

Leave aside the harm cheap labor being dumped on the country does to the millions of unemployed Americans. What does it mean for the Republican Party?

Citing surveys from the Pew Research Center, the Pew Hispanic Center, Gallup, NBC News, Harris polling, the Annenberg Policy Center, Latino Decisions, the Center for Immigration Studies and the Hudson Institute, Schlafly's report overwhelmingly demonstrates that merely continuing our current immigration policies spells doom for the Republican Party.


Immigrants -- all immigrants -- have always been the bulwark of the Democratic Party. 

At the current accelerated rate of immigration -- 1.1 million new immigrants every year -- Republicans will be a fringe party in about a decade.

Thanks to endless polling, we have a pretty good idea of what most immigrants believe.

According to a Harris poll, 81 percent of native-born citizens think the schools should teach students to be proud of being American. Only 50 percent of naturalized U.S. citizens do.

While 67 percent of native-born Americans believe our Constitution is a higher legal authority than international law, only 37 percent of naturalized citizens agree. 

The two largest immigrant groups, Hispanics and Asians, have little in common economically, culturally or historically. But they both overwhelmingly support big government, Obamacare, affirmative action and gun control. 

Also surprising, a Pew Research Center poll of all Hispanics, immigrant and citizen alike, found that Hispanics take a dimmer view of capitalism than even people who describe themselves as "liberal Democrats." While 47 percent of self-described "liberal Democrats" hold a negative view of capitalism, 55 percent of Hispanics do.


It would be one thing if the people with these views already lived here. Republicans would have no right to say, "You can't vote." But why on Earth are they bringing in people sworn to their political destruction?

Republicans have no obligation to assist the Democrats as they change the country in a way that favors them electorally, particularly when it does great harm to the people already here.

Sorry, Americans. You lose. 

Can the GOP Appeal to Women?

Apparently, far right columnist Jennifer Rubin is trying to get herself exiled from the Republican Party.  How else to explain her spate of columns taking the GOP to task for its embrace of ignorance and bigotry - translation: the Christianist and Tea Party - and it's refusal to accept that the world and nation are changing and that the GOP must change as well.  In her latest column in the Washington Post she looks at the GOP agenda that is increasingly forcing women who haven't had a lobotomy into the arms of the Democrats.   Rubin's position is a far cry from egomaniac Phyllis Schlafly who wants the GOP to focus only on white voters per Right Wing Watch:

Eagle Forum’s Phyllis Schlafly is riled up about comprehensive immigration reform, and she has hardly been hiding the reason why. Last month, Schlafly predicted that comprehensive reform would be “suicide for the Republican Party” because immigrants “come from a country” where they expect “a handout” from the government. 

Then, she claimed that Mitt Romney lost the presidential election not because of eroding support for the GOP among people of color, but because “his drop-off from white voters was tremendous” – which is just blatantly false.

But in an interview this week with conservative radio program Focus Today, Schlafly just came right out and said it. Calling the GOP’s need to reach out to Latinos a “great myth,” Schlafly said that “the people the Republicans should reach out to are the white votes, the white voters who didn’t vote in the last election.”  

Let's be candid.  Schlafly is a racists and she is a long time opponent of fully equality for women (other than herself, of course).  In contrast, here are highlights from Rubin's column:

The Post reports:

In a trend accelerated by the recent recession and an increase in births to single mothers, nearly four in 10 families with children under the age of 18 are now headed by women who are the sole or primary breadwinners for their families, according to a report released Wednesday by the Pew Research Center.

This has significant implications for all facets of American life, from child-rearing to culture to economics. And it should wake up Republicans to the need to recalibrate their message.

So how badly are Republicans doing with women?  .  .  .  . [Mitt Romney] lost women overall by a 44 to 55 percent margin.

The message that too many women heard from the GOP (and that Democrats exploited) was negative – finger-wagging at contraception and demeaning women in the military (as Rick Santorum did), commenting in outlandish ways about rape and decrying gay marriage. For those women not already in sync with Republicans, it came across as harsh, off-putting and mean spirited. They concluded that the GOP had nothing for them and, if they were single mothers, that Republicans didn’t really approve of them.

The message that focused on entrepreneurs, tax cuts and repealing Obamacare was not that attractive either. Most women don’t own or start businesses.

Put it this way: The image of the fiery, ferocious conservative warrior that the right-wing media applauds is precisely the type that turns off women voters who aren’t already die-hard Republicans.

I suspect that the GOP will ignore Rubin's message and embrace that of Schlafly.  The GOP base is increasingly insular and demands that the GOP focus only on the wishes and wants of the Christofascists - i.e., special rights - and the demented members of the Tea Party who make Neanderthals look like rocket scientists.

 

Phyllis Schlafly: Bring Back McCarthyism, Limit Immigration

While the "godly folk" riot in Paris, back home in America conservatives who pat themselves on the back for their supposed piety and godliness want to bring back the bad old days of Joesph McCarthy and the reign of terror he conducted through the House Committee on Un-American Activities.  A case in point is the virulently anti-gay, anti-women's rights Phyllis Schlaf'ly who has added virulent anti-Muslim bigotry to her list of hate and horror.   In a column in Wing Nut Daily (my name for World Net Daily) she lets lose with a screed that makes it clear she wants to see Muslims deemed guilty of treason and would be violence until proven innocent.  Right Wing Watch looks at her batshitery.  Here are excerpts (note the double standard for Christofascists):

Eagle Forum founder and Joseph McCarthy admirer Phyllis Schlafly is using the Boston marathon bombings as an excuse to push for the reinstatement of the notorious House Committee on Un-American Activities.

“It would be useful to reinstate the House Committee on Un-American Activities,” Schlafly wrote in a column yesterday, “so we can have a look at those in our midst who may be jihadists, dupes of violent Muslim indoctrination, or (in old Communist lingo) fellow travelers or useful idiots.”
In her column, which she titled, “Are You American 1st or Muslim 1st?,” Schlafly further argues that while it is okay to be a Christian first and American second, Muslims who put faith first should not be allowed in the country.

The Boston bombing crime shows that comprehensive immigration reform should not be only a southern border problem or even just a problem of illegal aliens. It’s also a problem of foreigners who are admitted legally but should never have been admitted, and of others admitted legally on a visa but are not tracked to make sure they depart when their visitor’s time expires, as U.S. law requires.

For starters, why would our government have admitted the Tsarnaev family whose son was named Tamerlan? That should have been a red alert because that is the name of one of the world’s notorious mass murderers, a 14th-century Central Asian warlord named Tamerlan, who killed about 17 million people.

 It would be useful to reinstate the House Committee on Un-American Activities so we can have a look at those in our midst who may be jihadists, dupes of violent Muslim indoctrination, or (in old Communist lingo) fellow travelers or useful idiots.

There is plenty of evidence that legal and illegal immigrants of various nationalities, in contravention of our citizenship pledge, retain their loyalty to the land they came from.

Schlafly’s argument is reminiscent of an incoherent answer that Pat Robertson gave last year to a 700 Club viewer who asked him why he criticized Muslims who put their faith ahead of their nationality when he does the same. Robertson claimed that Muslims are different from Christians because they are “under control of a foreign power.”

Based on Pat Robertson's comment, should Catholics be worried that they could be next on the hit list?  After all, the Vatican is treated as a sovereign nation - Muslims have no comparable nation state controlling them.   Let's get real.  Schlafly and those like her - Robertson, Bryan Fischer, Tony Perkins, members of the KKK, etc. - believe that America belongs to white conservative far right Christians. They'd be happiest if the rest of us simply ceased to exist or were expelled from the country.  I'm sorry, but with ancestors who were in this country since before 1825, I for one are more American than many of Ms. Schlafly's followers. 

Coming Out to One's Anti-Gay Father

 

One thing that continues to strike me is the irony that many of the most vociferous homophobes are the parents of gay children, e.g., Phyllis Schlafly is but one example.  Another is Charles W. Socarides, M.D., the father of gay rights activist Richard Socarides.  The elder Socarides not only is anti-gay, but was a founder of NARTH, which continues to maintain that homosexuality is a form of mental illness that can be "cured" through psychotherapy despite the positions of every legitimate medical and mental health association.  Personally, I believe that the only mental illness involved is that on the part of parents who cannot accept their gay children, especially those like Schlafly who blame sexual orientation on poor parenting.  In The New Yorker Richard Socarides has an interesting article that looks at his situation with his father.  Here are highlights:

Ever since I first knew I was gay, which for me was early on—as a teenager—I have been conflicted about talking about my father and our relationship. By the time I was in high school and felt the first attraction to other boys, he was a renowned New York psychiatrist—Dr. Charles W. Socarides, M.D.—famous mostly for being an early proponent of the theory that homosexuality is a mental illness that can be cured through psychotherapy.

I was never interested in changing my sexual orientation. For some reason, despite my background, I always considered it a gift and just a part of who I was.

There were challenges. Often, especially before I was out of the closet, I felt I had to hide my sexual orientation in order to avoid the notoriety that would have accompanied such a disclosure by the son of one of the founders of so-called gay-conversion therapy.

As I became an advocate for gay rights, I wanted very much for that work to stand on its own, and not viewed in the context of my father’s reputation. I was also sometimes embarrassed for him, as his professional reputation became interconnected with a theory that was, over time, wholly discredited. And it was just plain irritating to be asked, over and over again, if I was related to that crazy anti-gay doctor (and to have to say yes). With this backdrop, it was difficult, over the years until his death in 2005, to hold on to the residual affection I had for him as just my dad.

I think that coming out is the strongest and most important political act any gay person can take. It lets others know who we are, and, as I learned in politics, if you personally know a gay person, it is harder to support any kind of discrimination against him or her.

I don’t think my coming out to my dad was harder or easier than anyone else’s. I didn’t come out to the founder of conversion therapy. I came out to my father.

Richard Socarides talks about his coming out to his dad here:

Republicans See Cash Opportunity in Gay Marriage Shift

GOP Senator Rob Portman

The caption of this post which comes from a Politico article will have Tony Perkins, Brian Brown, Phyllis Schlafly, Linda Harvey and similar anti-gay hate merchants in full blown apoplexy along with convulsions on the floor and pools of spittle.   Yes, you read the title correctly.  A growing number of Republicans see a shift towards accepting gay marriage as a way to bring more cash into their coffers.  Apparently, Perkins' threat that the Christofascists will walk away if Republicans accept gay marriage hasn't struck fear in as many GOP hearts as Perkins had hoped.  Let's hope the trend trickles down to the level of the Virginia GOP which acts like a bunch of trained circus dogs that jump through the hoops held up by The Family Foundation.   Here are some highlights from the Politico piece:

Republican fundraisers say the changing views of gay marriage in their party could unlock big money from GOP donors in places like New York, California and Florida — where some Republicans have kept their checkbooks closed over what they saw as misplaced priorities, at best, or intolerance, at worst, at the highest ranks of the party.

Several Republicans pointed to Sen. Rob Portman’s switch in support of gay marriage as a watershed moment for the party. And more than two dozen high-profile GOP-ers asked the Supreme Court to back gay rights.

“Republicans’ intolerance to marriage equality has been detrimental to winning,” said Aaron McLear, a California Republican strategist. “Big donors understand that they don’t want to invest in campaigns focused on a losing issue, and I think certainly the fiscal issues for Republicans are much more marketable.”

It’s not clear how much money could come from donors supportive of the party’s move toward new thoughts on gay marriage. Pro gay-rights donors have long been an important source of campaign cash for Democrats, including after President Barack Obama pushed through a repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which barred openly gay people from serving in the military.  And operatives believe the money is there for Republicans, too.

Several lawmakers told POLITICO the issue has come up in meetings with potential big donors, who take a different view than the party base.  Portman himself has taken heat from New York donors who believe the party’s emphasis on social issues is one of the major reasons for losses this fall. Their views were taken so seriously that Portman, vice chairman of finance for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, held a dozen meetings with big New York donors recently in an attempt to assuage their fears about the direction of the party.

American Unity PAC, a super PAC started by Elliott Associates hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer to push Republican candidates to support gay marriage, plans to announce big changes related to its fundraising in the coming weeks as it ramps up for the midterm elections.  .  .  .  .  “I expect we’re going to play a major, major role in 2014. As more and more true conservatives come out in support of the freedom to marry, it gives us a lot more opportunity to play a role and make a difference in races,” said Jeff Cook-McCormac, a senior adviser to American Unity PAC.

David Herro, a major GOP donor who gave $50,000 to American Unity during the 2012 cycle, said Portman reconsidering his stance on gay marriage was “a huge positive” for the party.  .   .   .   Herro said he will continue to give to American Unity and that he welcomes Portman’s leadership on this issue.   "I think the Republican Party needs to be more libertarian on our views on these social issues,” he said.

One can just imagine the shrieks and wailing at the offices of FRC and AFA and Focus on the Family.  Let's hope the trend continues and that as a result more in the GOP make the shift to supporting marriage equality and in the process begin to marginalize the Christofascists. For its long term survival, the GOP needs to kick the Christianists to the curb at a minimum in terms of allowing them to control the party's position on social issues.

 

Pentagon to Remove Ban on Women in Combat

In recognition of the roles that women have already been playing in the fool's errand armed conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan launched by Chimperator George W. Bush and Emperor Palpatine Cheney, the Pentagon is poised to remove the ban in women in combat positions.  The ban is a recognition of reality and will remove the barrier that has barred women from full recognition for their valor and kept many from advancing up the ranks of the military.  One can just imagine the shrieks of Phyllis Schlafly and Christofascists who want women kept as subordinate chattel in the home - bare foot and pregnant if you will.  Obviously, I do not believe that all women should be required to go into combat positions, but those who want them should not be held back.  The Washington Post looks at the policy change:

Outgoing Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta plans to announce Thursday a lifting of the ban on female service members in combat roles, a watershed policy change that was informed by women’s valor in Iraq and Afghanistan and that removes the remaining barrier to a fully inclusive military, defense officials said.

Panetta made the decision “upon the recommendation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,” a senior defense official said Wednesday, an assertion that stunned female veteran activists who said they assumed that the brass was still uneasy about opening the most physically arduous positions to women. The Army and the Marines, which make up the bulk of the military’s ground combat force, will present plans to open most jobs to women by May 15.

“The onus is going to be on them to justify why a woman can’t serve in a particular role,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the plan before the official announcement.

The decision comes after a decade of counterinsurgency missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, where women demonstrated heroism on battlefields with no front lines. It dovetails with another seismic policy change in the military that has been implemented relatively smoothly: the repeal of the ban on openly gay service members.

Lawmakers and female veterans applauded Wednesday’s news, saying the ban on women in combat roles is obsolete.  “This is monumental,” said Anu Bhagwati, a former Marine captain and executive director of the Service Women’s Action Network, which has advocated for the full inclusion of women. “Every time equality is recognized and meritocracy is enforced, it helps everyone, and it will help professionalize the force.”

Advocates and experts say women are unlikely to flock to those positions, such as roles in light infantry and tank units and Special Forces — although some may. More substantively, they say, lifting the ban will go a long way toward changing the culture of a male-dominated institution in which women have long complained about discrimination and a high incidence of sexual assault.

“The reality is that so many women have been, in effect, in combat or quasi-combat,” he said. “This is catching up with reality.”

In a statement, Sen. James M. Inhofe (Okla.), the leading Republican on the Armed Services Committee, voiced a measure of concern, saying last year’s study raised “serious practical barriers” that, if ignored, could jeopardize the “safety and privacy” of service members.

James Inhofe - a Christianist who never can separate his bigoted religious views from public policy - not surprisingly raised to bogus issue of  service member "privacy" as a reason to keep women inferior.

Right Wing: America is Becoming Non-White-That's a Bad Thing

We all knew it was coming - the far right's freaking out over the new census data that reports that off all new babies born in the United States, whites now make up less than 50% of new births.  Uber-bitch herself, Phyllis Schlafly (at left) of Eagle Forum is beside herself and is lamenting that this is bad news for America.  In Schlafly's always bigoted mind, being non-white immediately equates to being an immigrant which she says means not "sharing American values."  Her equally big concern: "it is a good bet that they will not be voting Republican when they start voting in large numbers."  One might ask what are "American values"?  Native American values?  Whites after all were not the first Americans.  As for not voting Republican, given the party's anti-immigrant, anti-non-white, anti-non-ultra-right Christian agenda, the GOP and people like Schlafly have no one to blame but itself for its unattractiveness to those who do not belong to the white supremacist right wing Christian crowd.  Here a sampling of Schlafly's odious comments:

For decades, the NY Times has been promoting immigration policies that heavily favored a huge influx of non-whites. Today's lead story brags:

WASHINGTON — After years of speculation, estimates and projections, the Census Bureau has made it official: White births are no longer a majority in the United States.

It is not a good thing. The immigrants do not share American values, so it is a good bet that they will not be voting Republican when they start voting in large numbers.  

The NY Times liberals seek to destroy the American family of the 1950s, as symbolized by Ozzie and Harriet. The TV characters were happy, self-sufficient, autonomous, law-abiding, honorable, patriotic, hard-working, and otherwise embodied qualities that made America great. In other words, the show promoted values that NY Times liberals despise.

Instead, the USA is being transformed by immigrants who do not share those values, and who have high rates of illiteracy, illegitimacy, and gang crime, and they will vote

Not surprisingly, Schlafly considers herself a "good Christian." And sure enough, her core principles are scorn and hatred towards others and -  self-congratulatory feigned piety. 

Democrat when the Democrats promise them more food stamps.

Forbes' Top 100 Powerful Women

The far right and jackass members of Congress and the military have ridiculed Lady Gaga for her activism on gay rights issues and efforts to push for the repeal of DADT in particular. The last laugh is likely on her detractors. Forbes has announced it's list of the top 100 powerful women in the world and Stefanie Germanotta takes 7th place in the rankings. Meanwhile the doyennes of the lunatic far right such as Elaine Donnelly, Phyllis Schlafly, and the bitches at Concerned Women for America failed to make the list. Even the loon of the North, Sarah Palin comes in at 16th. Here's Forbes' comments on Lady Gaga:
*
All hail the new queen of pop. Part singer and part performance artist, Lady Gaga (née Stefanie Germanotta) has single-handedly reinvigorated pop music and pop culture. Her songs are like brain candy (sticky and addictive), her performances and fashion style are a spectacle. Her first album, The Fame, debuted in 2008, scoring two No. 1 hits with Just Dance and Poker Face. Her latest, The Fame Monster, has now put her on par with Beyoncé, Rhianna, and Mariah Carey for the most No. 1 Billboard hits (six) by a female artist. Her Monster's Ball world tour is poised to gross $200 million by the time it ends in April 2011. But it's not all pop and glamour for Gaga. She is vocal supporter of gay rights and the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell."
*

Congratulations to Lady Gaga - she's shown what a real "fierce advocate" does versus the liar in the White House.

Phyllis Schlafly Decries Government Assistance For ‘Unmarried Moms’

I have long found Phyllis Schlafly to be offensive for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that she is outspokenly anti-gay even though her oldest son John is gay. She also is one of the demagogues who loves to whine about "activist judges" and "special rights," she sees the United Nations as a plot for one world government and generally backs every unloving position embraced by the GOP base and other far right elements. Add to that, she's a narcissistic ego maniac. The web page for her Eagle Forum can best be described as a shameless worship site dedicated to Schlafly herself. Now, she has reached another low - even for her. She opposes the extension of unemployment benefits for distressed Americans and equates unemployment benefits as method Obama is using to buy votes for the Democrats. Specifically, unmarried mothers in her own words. Schlafly is another reason that one might not want to be identified as a Christian - at least if Schlafly exemplifies what Christians are like. Think Progress has a great quote of Schlafly decrying unemployment benefits for "unmarried moms" as well as factual data that confirms that her allegations against unmarried women are not even true. Here are some highlights:
*
One of the things Obama’s been doing is deliberately trying to increase the percentage of our population that is dependent on government for your living. For example, do you know what was the second biggest demographic group that voted for Obama? Obviously the blacks were the biggest demographic, y’all know what was the second biggest? Unmarried women. 70% of unmarried women voted for Obama. And this is because when you kick your husband out, you’ve got to have Big Brother Government to be your provider. And they know that. They’ve admitted it. And they have all kinds of bills to continue to subsidize illegitimacy…
*
The Obama administration wants to continue to subsidize this group because they know they are Democratic votes.

*
Yep, good Christian Schlafly would apparently like to see women and children go hungry and homeless. Indeed, she implies that they deserve it. As for some of the REAL facts as opposed to the BS spouted by Schlafly, here are a few:
*
Schlafly’s argument is specious. She talks about “subsidizing illegitimacy,” but not all single women are mothers. Less than 20 percent are mothers to young children. The rest include millions of widows, millions of young never-married women, and plenty in between — some of whom have kids, but most of whom do not.
*
That didn’t stop Schlafly from doubling down on her falsehoods in an interview with TPM yesterday. “All welfare goes to unmarried moms,” she claimed. “They are trying to line up their constituency for Obama and Democrats against Republican candidates.
*
[C]onsidering that 84 percent of custodial single parents are mothers and a quarter of American children are being raised by unmarried mothers, supporting single women is critical for supporting children. As the Center for American Progress’ Liz Weiss puts it, “When single mothers lose their home, suffer from hunger, or can’t find a job, their children also lose their home, go hungry, or suffer from greatly reduced household resources.
*
Poor children obviously aren't one of Schlafly's concerns. It's ad that when Schlafly isn't busy worshiping herself, she out spreading lies and disinformation against the downtrodden.

Woman Takes Command of Navy Strike Group

With the current controversy over allowing gays to serve openly in the U.S. military, it is important to remember that not so many years ago similar naysayers were pontificating that women in combat roles would destroy the military, lead to all kinds of fraternization and - the horrors - sexual misconduct. Joining in the nay saying were senior military brass and male chauvinists like Jim Webb, now U.S. Senator from Virginia. Not surprisingly, all the dire predictions failed to come to pass and the bigots and chauvinists were proven wrong. The same thing will happen if and when our "fierce advocate" in the White House grows some balls and exercises leadership - something that we've learned is not his strong suit. But getting back to the post headline. For the first time EVER in U.S. military history, a woman is taking command of a Navy Strike Group (formerly called a Battle Group). To understand what a big deal this is, one needs to understand what makes up a Strike Group: a nuclear powered super carrier, an air wing, a destroyer squadron, guided missile cruisers, guided missile destroyers, sometimes one or two submarines, and assorted support ships, including oilers and supply ships. The number of service members in a Strike Groups numbers in the many thousands (the carrier and air wing involve about 5,800 men/women alone). And now a woman, Rear Admiral Nora Tyson (pictured above), will command such a Strike Group. A Strike Group which includes 12 ships plus the super carrier Bush and an air wing. I wish Admiral Tyson the best and hope she makes Jim Webb, other anti-woman elements and nutcases like Phyllis Schlafly who opposes women in the military look like jackass. Here are highlights from the Virginian Pilot:
*
Rear Adm. Nora Tyson will become the first woman to take command of a carrier strike group in a ceremony Thursday aboard the carrier George H.W. Bush at Norfolk Naval Station. Tyson will assume command of Carrier Strike Group 2 from Capt. Jeffrey Hesterman, the acting commander.
*
She has served most recently as executive assistant to Adm. Gary Roughead, the chief of naval operations. Roughead will be on hand for the 3:30 p.m. ceremony.
*
The Norfolk-based Bush is America’s newest aircraft carrier. The 10th and final Nimitz-class carrier, it was commissioned Jan. 10, 2009. It is preparing for its maiden deployment in 2011.
*
Tyson will lead a complement of ships and aircraft that includes the cruisers Philippine Sea, Gettysburg, Monterey, and Vella Gulf; the destroyers Bainbridge, James E. Williams, Mahan, Nitze, Mitscher, and Truxtun ; the frigates Carr and Hawes; and Carrier Air Wing 8.