AG Jeff Sessions Lied About Russia Meetings in Security Clearance Form

Trump and Jeff Sessions

As noted in prior posts, I have been acquainted with former Senator and now U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions since my days in Alabama in the late 1970's and early 1980's. The man was foul and reprehensible then and he is equally so now.   Here's what I said about Sessions back in early February:

While I was still living in Mobile, a 19 year old black man named Michael Donald was murdered in what was the last recorded lynching in the United States. Several Ku Klux Klan (KKK) members beat and killed Michael Donald, and hanged his body from a tree.  Session's office did not prosecute the case, but both men were arrested and convicted.  Subsequently, due to the efforts of Thomas Figures, the Assistant U.S. Attorney in Mobile, FBI agent James Bodman, and Michael Figures, a state senator and civil rights activist, the killers were ultimately arrested over two and a half years after the murder and were prosecuted, with one receiving the death penalty. After dropping the ball on the Donald case, Sessions prosecuted three black community organizers in the Black belt of Alabama, including Martin Luther King Jr.'s former aide Albert Turner, for voter fraud, alleging tampering with 14 absentee ballots. The prosecution stirred charges of selective prosecution of black voter registration. The defendants, known as the Marion Three, were acquitted of all charges by a jury.

In addition to being a racist, Sessions is also a virulent homophobe and, as CNN reports, a liar. Specifically, when Sessions submitted forms for his top security clearance, Sessions lied about every having meet with Russian intelligence and other Russian government officials.  Here are article excerpts:

Attorney General Jeff Sessions did not disclose meetings he had last year with Russian officials when he applied for his security clearance, the Justice Department told CNN Wednesday.

Sessions, who met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak at least two times last year, didn't note those interactions on the form, which requires him to list "any contact" he or his family had with a "foreign government" or its "representatives" over the past seven years, officials said.

The new information from the Justice Department is the latest example of Sessions failing to disclose contacts he had with Russian officials. He has come under withering criticism from Democrats following revelations that he did not disclose the same contacts with Kislyak during his Senate confirmation hearings earlier this year.

A legal expert who regularly assists officials in filling out the form disagrees with the Justice Department's explanation, suggesting that Sessions should have disclosed the meetings.

"My interpretation is that a member of Congress would still have to reveal the appropriate foreign government contacts notwithstanding it was on official business," said Mark Zaid, a Washington attorney who specializes in national security law.

Zaid added that in a similar circumstance he advised a member of Congress to list all foreign contacts -- including those made during official US government business.

To obtain a security clearance, a federal official is not required to list the meetings if they were part of a foreign conference he or she attended while conducting government business. Sessions' meetings, however, do not appear to be tied to foreign conferences.

The omission comes after problems that Trump adviser Jared Kushner and the President's ex-national security adviser, Michael Flynn, have had on their own security forms. Kushner prematurely submitted his SF-86 form without listing foreign contacts and had to notify the FBI the next day that he was willing to provide the information. Flynn is under investigation for not properly disclosing payments linked to Russia for his foreign trips.

Lawmakers have raised questions about Sessions' meetings with Russian officials while he played a prominent role in the Trump campaign -- meetings that he only disclosed after The Washington Post revealed them. He is under scrutiny as well for his role in the firing of FBI Director James Comey despite his recusal from the Russia investigation.

At his confirmation hearing January 10, Sessions testified that he "did not have communications" with the Russians during the campaign. He made the same assertion in an official questionnaire.

Lawmakers on the House and Senate intelligence committees say it is possible that Sessions could be questioned about those meetings and his role in the campaign -- as well as the circumstances around the Comey firing.

Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat on the judiciary committee, called for Sessions to testify publicly after the news of Sessions' omissions broke. On CNN's "The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer," Blumenthal said that the news requires "intense and immediate investigation."

Sessions, of course, claims to be a  devout Christian - even though lying, refusing to prosecute KKK killers and racial bigotry don't exactly conform to Christ's gospel message. 

Betsy DeVos Is A Dangerous Threat to LGBTQ Equality

The 2016 presidential election was one of the most decisive in history.  Perhaps only the election of 1860 caused as many breaks in friendships and family ties.  What is frightening to me is the manner in which Donald Trump - always Der Fuhrer in my mind - sold his soul (assuming he even has one) to a who's who of Christofascist leaders s in order to cause them to turn out the evangelical vote on November 8, 2016.  Now, the Christofascists are calling in the chips in the form of Trump's cabinet nominees, many of whom are the most extreme imaginable.  A case in point is billionaire homophobe and anti-public school zealot Betsy DeVos whom Der Fuhrer has nominated to be Secretary of Education.  Blogger friend and and radio personality Michelangelo Signorile lays out in the Huffington Post the threat that Devos poses to LGBT students and public education in general.  here are excerpts:

“It is unfathomable that the next Secretary of Education would oppose basic protections for LGBT students and roll back the progress we have made to ensure all students feel safe and supported in our schools,” Representative Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), an openly gay House member, said in a statement last week about Donald Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Education, the Michigan billionaire Betsy DeVos. “Ms. DeVos’ history of opposing equality for LGBT individuals is deeply troubling, and the public deserves to know whether she will work with us to improve lives or continue to advocate an extremist agenda that bullies our students.”

DeVos is not just someone who has opposed marriage equality in the past, like many people, Democrat and Republican, or who differs on particular policies or laws. She is a hardened anti-LGBTQ crusader, a member of a family that has devoted itself ― by donating tens of millions of dollars ― to fighting the rights of queer people. DeVos is a religious zealot who spoke about using public education to “advance God’s Kingdom.” She doesn’t belong in a government job in which separation of church and state is crucial, and one which over the past eight years has been critical to the safety and educational experience of LGBTQ students.

Amid reports in recent years of what seemed like an epidemic of suicides of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students, the Obama administration worked with advocates for queer youth to fight the bullying in schools that often leads to students taking their own lives.

And last year, the administration issued guidance on the treatment of transgender students with regard to public facilities, something which conservatives challenged in court ― a challenge that is still pending, with the Obama administration fighting it during the last days of the administration and which is uncertain under a Trump administration.

Will DeVos continue these programs and advance further desperately needed policies toward LGBTQ equality? Both her record and Vice President-Elect Mike Pence’s own words in a radio interview with evangelical leader Dr. James Dobson during the election campaign would suggest not. Pence said he and Trump plan to withdraw federal guidance to the states issued by the Obama administration protecting transgender students.

And since 1998, DeVos and her family’s foundations have donated at least $6.1 million to Focus on the Family, which has fought rights for LGBTQ people, promotes “conversion therapy,” and deems transgender people as “mentally ill.” Focus on the Family also opposes the very anti-bullying programs that the Education Department has developed, and opposes workplace protections for LGBTQ people (like those included in an executive order President Obama signed banning discrimination among federal contractors).

The DeVos family also contributed $500,000 to the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage. And DeVos and her husband Richard personally contributed to a successful effort to ban marriage equality in Michigan’s constitution.

[U]nless she disavows them and claims to have had a miraculous transformation, it’s impossible to imagine how this individual who has championed school vouchers and private, Christian schools could fairly guide the nation’s public education system, where LGBTQ students are often under attack and need the protections of the federal government.

As I wrote at the very beginning of the Trump transition, with evangelical, anti-LGBTQ Pence in charge of the transition, the Trump cabinet picks are a who’s who of homophobia and transphobia, as evangelical groups like the Family Research Council are getting paid off for their support. It looks like a pack wolves ready to rip apart rights for LGBTQ people. And Besty DeVos is among the leaders of the pack.

In some ways, Betsy DeVos is just as extreme as Islamic fundamentalist who seek to force their religious beliefs on all of society.  Indeed, in DeVos' mind freedom of religion translates to her right to inflict her ignorance embracing, and homophobic believes on all without opposition or criticism. 

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. 

Sleazy Daily Beast Article "Outs" and Endangers Olympic Athletes

Douche Bag (my view) Nico Hines

Up until now, I regularly check out The Daily Beast and often have referenced their articles - I did the same with Rolling Stone until it published its fiction based story slandering the University of Virginia.  Now, The Daily Beast is going to join Rolling Stone as an outlet to be avoided.  Why? Beacuse of an utterly sleazy pieces by a scumbag (at least in my view) named Nico Hines who went around the Olympic Village with Grindr and other hookup apps and then "outed" various athletes, many from anti-gay countries where their lives might be endangered on their return home.  While the editors of The Daily Beast have done a disingenuous "We're Sorry!" piece, it is nowhere near enough and does nothing to undo thee damage done to some athletes.  Both Hines and whoever approved his piece need to be fired immediately.  Slate has a piece ripping The Daily Beast a new one and rightly so.  Here are highlights from Slate: 

On Thursday morning, the Daily Beast published an exceedingly gross and bizarre article by a straight, married male writer who lured in gay Olympians through hookup apps for no particular purpose. The entire piece is an astoundingly creepy exercise in Grindr-baiting, which involves a journalist accessing Grindr in an unlikely setting and … seeing what happens. But the Daily Beast piece, penned by Nico Hines, is a uniquely disgusting and irresponsible entry into the tired genre. Hines entices his (often closeted) subjects under false pretenses; effectively outs several closeted athletes who live in repressive countries; then writes about the whole thing in a tone of mocking yet lurid condescension. By 10:30 a.m. ET, the Daily Beast had, in response to criticism, edited out the most identifying details about closeted athletes—but that’s too little, too late. (Update, 9:15 p.m.: On Thursday evening, the Daily Beast took down the piece entirely.)

Hines begins by explaining that his entire assignment consisted of walking around the Olympic Village while using several hookup apps, hoping to learn whether “an Average Joe” can “join the bacchanalia.” He quickly abandons apps like Tinder, which are mostly used by straight people, for Grindr, which is for gay men: “No prizes for guessing that Grindr proved more of an instant hookup success than Bumble or Tinder,” he writes. Presumably, Hines awards “no prizes” because he believes gays are more promiscuous than straight people—a theme to which Hines often returns throughout his vile piece.

Because Hines is not gay, you might find his use of Grindr a bit dishonest. But not to worry: “For the record,” Hines writes, “I didn’t lie to anyone or pretend to be someone I wasn’t—unless you count being on Grindr in the first place—since I’m straight, with a wife and child.” This sentence reflects a stunning amount of ignorance, because, in Hines’ situation, of course being on Grindr in the first place is a lie. Grindr is an app for men who wish to hook up with other men. That is its purpose! To be on Grindr when you do not have that goal, and when you could not possibly have that goal because you are straight, is itself a mendacious deception.

With his dubious premise established, Hines proceeds to out athlete after athlete, providing enough information about each Olympian he encounters for anyone with basic Google skills to uncover their identities. (After several minutes of Googling, I surmised the identities of five of the gay athletes Hines described.) I’m not going to repeat his descriptions, because—as Hines himself acknowledges!—some of them live in “notoriously homophobic” countries and remain closeted at home.

Shortly after Hines’ article published, openly gay Olympian Gus Kenworthy tweeted that the author “basically just outed a bunch of athletes in his quest to write a shitty [Daily Beast] article where he admitted to entrapment.” That is correct, but it’s worth exploring why Hines embarked upon this weird, sleazy quest in the first place. I count two reasons. The first is that Hines simply enjoys tittering with condescension at all the gay athletes who take the bait and engage with him—a straight dude, as Hines emphatically reminds us. Why else zero in on Grindr? The second reason is more repulsive: Hines appears to take pleasure in luring in these Olympians then outing them to all the world.

But the offensive purpose of Hines’ article is really the least of its problems. Far worse is the actual damage it will likely cause to real, live human beings—inevitable onsequences that Hines blithely ignored. Several athletes who are closeted at home (and possibly to their own teammates) will wake up on Thursday morning to the news that the Daily Beast has outed them. Their teammates could ostracize and alienate them; their families could disown them; their countries could imprison them. And for what? A homophobic article about how a straight guy conned gay Olympians from anti-gay countries into hitting on him through Grindr? Hines’ article is a dangerous disaster, a wildly unethical train wreck that should be taken down immediately for the sake of its duped subjects. Hines may view his Grindr-baiting as all fun and games. For the victims of his unprincipled journalism, however, his nasty little piece has the power to ruin lives. 

As I said, I am saying good bye to The Daily Beast.  As for Hines, he needs to be fired and  boycotted by legitimate news outlets.  Perhaps he can get a job with FRC or AFA where lying and seeking to harm gays is an everyday mission. 

Louisiana Federal Judge Gets It Wrong and Uphold Gay Marriage Ban

Judge Feldman - homophobe or self-loathing closet case?

While other judges at the state court level have upheld state bans on same sex marriage, since the ruling in United States v. Windsor, no federal judge or Court of Appeals has upheld a state ban until today.  Today, Louisiana Federal Judge Martin Feldman (pictured at left)not only upheld Louisiana's ban, but misconstrued Windsor and, worse yet, equated same sex marriage with opening the doors to legalized incest.  From his opinion, it is unclear if Feldman is simply an asshole, a homophobe or seeking to force the United States Supreme Court to make a definitive ruling by going against the flow of all the other rulings handed down since Windsor.  Whatever Feldman's agenda may be, he misconstrues Windsor which NEVER ruled on state bans because the sole issue before the Court in Windsor was Section 3 of DOMA which controlled FEDERAL recognition of same sex marriages legally performed in states with legalized same sex marriage.  Thus, any statements in Windsor on state legislation on marriage was what's called "dicta" - i.e., nonbinding because it is not central to the issue before the Court.  Most first year law students know better than to cite dicta as governing precedent.  A piece in Towleroad goes further into tearing Feldman's opinion apart.  Here are excerpts:

Louisiana Federal Judge Martin Feldman, a Reagan appointee, has upheld Louisiana's ban on marriage equality in a haphazard opinion remarkable only for its outdated language and subtly hateful rhetoric. Falling into traps we teach law students to avoid, Judge Feldman finds marriage equality as suspect as fathers marrying their daughters and improperly narrows the scope of the case to seeking a "right to same-sex marriage" rather than just "marriage." He suggests that being gay is a "lifestyle choice" and states that such a "choice" is butting heads with the democratic process, something he seems to think is infallible and beyond reproach.

Judge Feldman gets it wrong. The fight for marriage equality is a fight for marriage, not anything special or different than what opposite-sex couples enjoy. Being gay is not a choice and loving someone of the same sex is not a "lifestyle choice": it is love, it is human nature. And permitting gays to marry does not open the door to incestuous marriages, bestial marriages, or polyamorous unions. That kind of slippery slope argument doesn't pass the laugh test. Countless jurisdictions have made the decision to allow gays to marry, a legal policy decision that has no negative health or cohesion effects on society, without improperly permitting marriages that could be damaging to those involved and to children.

Judge Feldman is not the first judge to uphold a ban. He is not even the first to uphold a ban in the post-Windsor era. He is, however, the first federal judge to uphold the constitutionality of a state ban on marriage equality since Windsor, which complicates marriage's journey through the federal courts.

The decision today does not necessarily mean the Supreme Court will have to take one or several marriage equality cases; Judge Feldman could still be overturned by the Fifth Circuit. But it does have several effects:

(1) it makes a circuit split, a key reason the Supreme Court takes cases, more likely;
(2) it provides some measure of legitimacy to anti-equality forces by giving them a victory and resurrecting their outdated and hateful language; and
(3) it denies very real rights to very real families struggling in Louisiana.

Judge Feldman did not spew the kind of hate that comes from the National Organization for Marriage or the Liberty Council or the Westboro Baptist Church. Nor, on the other hand, was he even remotely supportive. Besides calling being gay a "lifestyle choice" (Error 1) and comparing gays marrying to incest (Error 2), he asserted that the right the plaintiffs sought was a "new right," one definitely not steeped in the democratic tradition of this country--namely, a right to same-sex marriage (Error 3).

As the [U.S. Supreme] Court noted in Lawrence v. Texas, when it overturned Bowers, Justice White got it wrong: to limit the discussion to sex is to ignore the reality of why people make love and why they have intimate relationships with others. Judge Feldman also got it wrong. We don't want to get "gay married;" we want to get married. There would be little drawing us to fight if all we were fighting for was our own separate-and-unequal institution of unions.

Today's opinion also assumes that once the supposed Pandora's Box of marriage is open, it won't stop until forks are marrying spoons and knives (Error 4).

Judge Feldman also gets the level of scrutiny wrong. He uses the lowest form of rational basis review, which allows the state to justify its discriminatory laws on "any conceivable basis" (Error 5). But the federal courts, including the Supreme Court in Lawrence and Windsor, have not been using that insanely low bar for some time.

What's more, the particular rational basis on which Judge Feldman hangs his hat -- "linking children to an intact family formed by their two biological parents" -- is so illogical as to be laughable (Error 6). How does banning gays from marrying actually ensure that more children will be born to and be raised by opposite-sex biological parents in wedlock?

It is hard to say what effects this wayward decision will have. The case will go up to the Fifth Circuit, which already has a marriage equality case from Texas (striking down the ban), but the mere fact that Judge Feldman upheld the ban will not necessarily weigh in the ban's favor up at the circuit court. Matters of law, as attorneys say, are reviewed de novo, from the beginning, regardless of the conclusions below. However, the mere fact of having an antiequality opinion on the books gives some measure of legitimacy to the right's outdated, hateful, antigay arguments. But we've come back from far worse antigay rhetoric from federal judges. For most of us, this will be a single opinion discarded to the trash bin soon. But for the residents of Louisiana, it is another wound that will take a lot longer to heal.

Randy Forbes Pushing National Republican Congressional Committee to Deny Support to Gay Candidates

As I have noted before, I was in law school with now Congressman Randy Forbes.  You might say that I even counted him as a friend.  I honestly cannot determine what the Hell has happened to the man to make him such a homophobe and such a tool of the Christofascists.  It's as if a "Stepford Wife" transformation was done to him.  Now, Forbes has ratcheted up his batshitery and attacks on gays by pushing the National Republican Congressional Committee to deny any assistance to promising gay Republican candidates.  Given that Forbes is in a safe, gerrymandered district, it's not as if he needs to be pandering so blatantly to the Christofascists at The Family Foundation.  One can only wonder if Forbes is another Ed Schrock - stridently anti-gay to hide the real story.  Politico looks at Forbes quest against gay Republicans.  Here are excerpts: 

Virginia Rep. Randy Forbes, a senior House Republican eyeing a powerful committee chairmanship, is causing friction with some of his colleagues by pushing the House GOP campaign arm to deny support for some of the party’s gay congressional candidates.

Forbes has waged a lengthy crusade to convince his colleagues and the National Republican Congressional Committee brass they shouldn’t back some gay candidates. His efforts on Capitol Hill were described to POLITICO by more than a half-dozen sources with direct knowledge of the talks.

The issue is particularly acute because House Republicans have two promising openly gay candidates in 2014 vying for seats held by Democrats. Richard Tisei, who narrowly lost to Democratic Rep. John Tierney in 2012, is running again in northeastern Massachusetts. And in San Diego, Carl DeMaio, a former city councilman, is trying to knock off Democratic Rep. Scott Peters.

Many senior House Republicans haven’t shied away from giving money to Tisei or DeMaio. The NRCC supported Tisei in 2012, and many top Republicans contributed to his campaign. The political arm of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) gave DeMaio $10,000 in June. And Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) chipped in $5,000 the same month.

On Wednesday, Forbes told POLITICO he thinks “GOP leaders can do whatever they want to do,” in terms of giving money to gay candidates.  He said he is more concerned about members being asked to contribute to the campaigns. The NRCC is partially funded by collecting tens of millions of dollars from House Republicans, who pay dues to the organization.

In an emailed statement to POLITICO in response to this story, NRCC Chairman Greg Walden of Oregon said, “Our decisions on the Republican nominees we support will not be based on race, gender or sexual orientation but will be based on the strength of their candidacy and their ability to defeat Democrats.”

Many Republicans seem willing to back DeMaio. Rep. Darrell Issa, a senior California Republican who has endorsed him, said that “he will be supported by the NRCC when he wins the primary.”
“I will see to that,” said Issa, who chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Although Forbes has been lobbying on this issue for some time, it is becoming public now, as his name is being mentioned for the committee chairmanship. Although he hasn’t announced his retirement, many GOP insiders expect current Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) to forgo another bid for election.

We do not need Forbes in a position such as chairman of the Armed Services Committee.  His anti-gay jihad may warm the icy cold heart of Victoria Cobb at The Family Foundation, but it certainly does jibe with a political party's goal of winning elections.

Bryan Fischer Won't Answer a Simple 'Yes' or 'No' Question About Same Sex Attraction

There are not too many anti-gay Christofascists for vile than American Family Association's Bryan Fischer who seemingly has worked over time to justify the organization's hate group designation by the Southern Poverty Law Center.  Of course, it's not just gays that Fischer seems to hate.  You can add blacks, Hispanics, American Indians, liberal women - the list is very lengthy.  Thus, it was delicious when Fischer found himself caught up in a bizarre interview with Alan Colmes where Fischer refused to say he's never had homosexual attractions.  A simple "No" response would have been so easy.  That Fischer refused to answer suggests that maybe he IS a closet case like so many other loud homophobes.  Right Wing Watch looks at the interview.  Here are highlights:

We seem to recall that after the last time Bryan Fischer appeared on Alan Colmes' radio program, he vowed never to appear on his show again.  But he must have changed his mind, because last night he returned to Colmes' program to discuss a variety of subjects, like his belief that President Obama will seek to forcibly disarm Christians and that homosexuality will be reponsible for the collapse of the western economy.

But things took a turn for the awkward near the end of the interview when Colmes asked Fischer about his theory that being selective in one's choice of sexual partners demonstrates that being gay is a choice.  When Colmes asked Fischer to explain this, Fischer said it simply proves that "people are not obligated to act on every sexual impulse that they experience," which prompted Colmes to ask Fischer if he had ever experienced any gay impulses ... but Fischer wasn't about to engage in that conversation:

Colmes: Have you ever had a gay impulse?

Fischer: (Laughing) Alan, I am not going to talk about that ...

Colmes: I'm just wondering ...

Fischer: Alan, I'm not going to go there. Give it a rest Alan ...

Colmes: It's a simple yes or no question.

Fischer: We're not going to talk about that.

Colmes: Because maybe if you've been able to overcome your gay impulses and you've been successful in doing it, you could be a model for other people you'd like to see act the same way.
Fischer: The focus here, Alan, is that everybody experiences sexual impulses that if they acted on those impulses, it would destroy them.

Colmes: Well, can you give me an example from your own life? What would be some of yours?
Fischer: You've experienced them ...

Colmes: I have?

Fischer: I've experienced them. Every man, every woman has experienced certain sexual impulses that, if they acted on them, if they conducted themselves by yielding to those impulses, it would destroy them. Ask Tiger Woods about that.

Colmes: I don't think I've ever had sexual impulses that would destroy the society or the culture or make me a deviant in some way. I honestly don't think that's ever happened, even in your eyes, so I'm surprised. I wonder what impulses you're talking about. If you've had them, I'd love to know what they are.

Fischer: Well the focus Alan is on sexual conduct, sexual behavior, not on sexual impulse ...

Colmes: So you won't tell me whether you yourself have been able to overcome a gay impulse?

Fischer: Alan, give it a rest.

As I said, too funny.  Why could he not simply have said "No"?

Spittle Flecked Matt Staver Denounces Gay Friendly Republicans as “Cockroaches”

The batshitery and spittle flying from the Christofascists in the wake of (i) yesterday's Supreme Court oral arguments which suggest that the Defense of Marriage Act is  likely to be struck down and (ii) statements by a minority of Republicans indicating a possible shift on gay marriage is unbelievable.  And the Christofascists are not only attacking gays but also Republicans who are signalling that they may stop prostituting themselves to the Christofascists and hate spewing "family values" organizations.  Among those vociferously attacking members of the GOP is Matt Staver, dean of Liberty University Law School, an embarrassment to and blight on the Commonwealth of Virginia.  As Right Wing Watch reports, Crosstalk, a Christianist radio outlet.  Here are highlights on Staver's venom and whining:

Liberty Counsel Chairman Mat Staver yesterday spoke to Vic Eliason of Voice of Christian Youth America on Crosstalk, where the two agreed that legalizing same-sex marriage nationally “would be the same as pronouncing the death sentence on America.”

Staver, who is also the dean of the Liberty University School of Law, even went so far as to say that marriage equality would “obliterate” morality, marriage and “the idea that there even is a God,” along with harming children, parents and society at large.

He later cited California’s law barring the use of ex-gay therapy on minors as an example of how gay rights represent “a direct assault on the very core of our liberties and morality, marriage and even God.”

Staver described Rob Portman, Karl Rove and Reince Priebus as “cockroaches” which “start running” once “you flip on the lights” over their comments on gay marriage, and Eliason said of the Log Cabin Republicans: “Is there nobody to clean the cockroaches out?”

After discussing George W. Bush’s failure to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment, Staver joined other Religious Right leaders like Mike Huckabee, Tony Perkins and Gary Bauer in warning about the emergence of a “third party” and a “mass exodus” from the GOP “if the Republican Party were to adopt same-sex marriage.”

STAVER:  .  .  .  So now you have Karl Rove and you have [Reince] Priebus and some others, [Rob] Portman, they’re going down a way that ultimately will split the Republican Party. I can tell you what, if the Republican Party were to adopt same-sex marriage, if they were to do that, evangelicals will leave en masse and that will create a third party. No one wants to create a third party, they want to work within the system, they want to make sure that it advances freedom and liberty and the sanctity of life and marriage, but if the Republican Party goes down that road you can bet that there will be a mass exodus from that party and it will not win elections again for many, many years in the future.

Message to Staver: where are the evangelicals going to go?  Does he seriously believe that a third party pandering to the evangelical vote would have a snowball's chance in Hell of winning elections?  These people truly are living in a fantasy world.

CNN’s Brooke Baldwin Takes Anti-Gay, White Supremacist Tony Perkins To Task

As I have noted before, it drives me to distraction and yelling at the television when I see main stream media outlets giving uber-homophobic, white supremacist loving, pathological liar Tony Perkins a platform from which to spew his lies and disinformation without challenge or any acknowledgement of  Perkins' truly foul history and baggage.  Thankfully, that trend ceased at least temporarily when CNN's Brooke Baldwin went after Perkins' bigotry and refused to back down on her questioning.  Not surprisingly, Perkins either refused to answer or fell back to his "religious belief" cop out. Perkins needs to be challenged like this EVERY time he goes on the airwaves.  Better yet, his sordid history should be summarized when he is first introduced so that viewers will understand the hate and animus that motivate Perkins and the hate group that he leads.   A video clip is set out below.  Here are highlights from Mediate:

Tony Perkins has been particularly loud in recent days as a voice against equal rights of marriage for same-sex couples, arguing that one minority in the society cannot define religious sacraments that, for some reason, are also governmental institutions “for the rest of us.” He took his crusade to CNN today with anchor Brooke Baldwin, who flummoxed the Family Research Council leader with simple questions like “have you ever been to the home of a same-sex couple?” and “why do homosexuals bother you so much?”

From the start of the interview, it was clear that Perkins was not interested in discussing the matter in personal terms, instead noting that “30 states have enshrined that definition into their constitution with an average vote of 67%,” and the issue at hand was not the private lives of loving couples, but “what we’re talking about here is the curriculum in our public schools.” Baldwin didn’t seem to buy into this argument, asking, “why are we talking about curriculum in the school when this is about love and the law and the ability to get married?” Perkins replied that the subject was one in the same: “religious freedom, parental rights, public accommodation.”

 Baldwin asked him whether his experience had corroborated that belief: “Have you ever been to the home of a same-sex couple?”

Perkins answered in the negative, and refused to argue what he would tell that hypothetical couple to convince them their lifestyle was hurting society. “We don’t make public policy based on what is good for me… not anecdotes or what one couple likes.” As a society, Perkins asserted, “we have incurred a great harm.”

“I know you don’t want to answer the question,” Baldwin asked, patience wearing visibly thin, “but I’m going to try again: why do homosexuals bother you so much?” “They don’t bother me!” Perkins replied, asserting again that he was “not going to be silent while they try to redefine marriage in this country.”

Will Americans Elect a Jerk to the White House?

There was a time when I actually thought that Mitt Romney might be somewhat acceptable as president.  Unfortunately, the more I've learned about him, the more mistaken I realized I was - the guy, in truth is a total unfeeling jerk.  And the stories about his gay bashing and abuse in high school was the final straw.  That's not to say that I'm in love with Barack Obama, but despite his failings, he's not a creep who has not empathy for others and is clueless as to the daily challenges most Americans have to deal with.  And then there's the issues of gay marriage and gay adoption.  Romney basically cannot even accept my common humanity nor can he admit that gays have lives, loves and children just like everyone else.  A column in The Daily Beast looks at Romney's "jerk factor."  Here are excerpts:

Very few votes are going to be cast on the basis of what Mitt Romney did or didn’t do to John Lauber in 1965. So that, per se, isn’t Romney’s problem. But this is: The story lands as another brick on pile of evidence amassing that he’s just a disagreeable human being. A few days ago I wrote about Barack Obama’s biggest problem, which is that despite all the many areas in which Americans rate him higher than Romney, the one on which they give Romney the edge happens to be pretty important: handling the economy. Now we get to Romney’s biggest problem. The likability factor. He ain’t got it. And he ain’t got much of a way to get it.

Historical question: When is the last time the clearly less likeable candidate beat the clearly more likeable one for the White House? The answer is, a long time. I put the question to Gallup, which didn’t have historical numbers at hand. But doing some noodling around on my own suggests that you have to go back to 1968 to find such a result.

This is the biggest washout of modern times, folks. Gallup just this week put the likeability ratings at Obama 60, Romney 31. It’s not that Obama’s number is unusually high.  .  .  .   they Do. Not. Like. Mitt. Romney.  .   .   .  Every time he says something off the cuff he says something obnoxious. Corporations are people, pal. I like firing people. Where on earth did you get those Godforsaken cookies?

He also—and this actually is interesting, because it’s something our normal public discourse does not like to admit or allow for—is way too rich. We’re constantly told that Americans don’t have any class envy, and compared to some European nations they don’t. But even Americans have limits. A few million, even $50 million; okay. But a quarter billion dollars? A house with an elevator . . . for the cars? It also matters to people how the money was made. It’s okay to be worth a gajillion dollars if you’re Bill Gates or Steve Jobs and have made everyone’s lives more interesting and cooler. But what’s Mitt Romney done?

[H]e has no grasp of the one crucial reality of class in America: you can be filthy rich as long as you don’t look or act like it. Gates doesn’t comb his hair, much. Jobs wore sneakers. Romney just looks too pressed.

And this brings us back to the Cranbrook School incident. We might have learned from The Washington Post this week that Romney gallantly interceded on poor Lauber’s behalf. Or even, maybe, that he did the awful deed, but a few years later he got in touch with Lauber to say, “Gee, old scout, went a bit overboard there.” Or even that he acknowledged to one of his confederates that he regretted the incident. In other words, we might have learned something that showed he knows he behaved like an asshole. But all we learned is that he behaved like an asshole and is now pretending to forget it. A jerk is one thing. But a jerk who takes no responsibility for his jerkitude is pretty much the definition of an unlikeable person.

[T]here’s something very reassuring about this country reposing in those numbers, that the black guy with the weird name who’s been called everything under the sun is twice as likeable as the rich white guy. This is the America that drives the wingers crazy, but that the rest of us—the majority—live in, and love.

Ron Paul's Bigoted and Racist Past and Present?

It seems as each member of the GOP presidential nomination clown car reaches near the top of polls, suddenly a raft of sleazy information and/or evidence of racism and bigotry comes swirling to the surface. The latest to be engulfed by his past heinous statements and positions is Ron Paul. Newsletters that Paul circulated to supporters are gaining new levels of scrutiny and the picture that is emerging is anything but pretty. Indeed, before the nomination process is over, they yet be his undoing no matter how popular the racist and anti-gay positions may be with the Christianist/Tea Party base of today's Republican Party. Andrew Sullivan, who had previously endorsed Ron Paul largely because of some of his libertarian positions has re-thought his support and has now disavowed Paul. Here are some highlights:

In my view, my friend Joe Klein goes too far: The newsletters went out under his name. They are replete with hateful filth. They disqualify him from the presidency. The idea that someone else wrote them and Paul didn’t read them is utter nonsense–even if true, it would be a devastating commentary on Paul’s executive abilities. How could he hire whomever wrote this crap? And so, when I called Ron Paul honorable yesterday, I was wrong. He is not.

But it is not nothing. . . . . a man who could win the Iowa caucuses and is now third in national polls has to have a plausible answer for this. It's what happens when you hit the big leagues. . . . Paul has not had the wherewithal or presence of mind to do that. Indeed, he has not even named the association, the first step to disowning it. And unlike Obama with Wright, Paul got money from these newsletters.

It seems to me that even though I don't believe these old screeds reflect Paul's own beliefs, his new level of prominence demands a new level of accountablity, even on issues this old. If Paul did not write these newsletters, then he has an obligation to say if he knew who did, or conduct an investigation.

[A] person who has that kind of bigotry directly printed under his name without a clear empirical explanation of why he is innocent cannot be an honorable president of the United States. The hatred of groups of people in those letters - however gussied up by shards of legitimate arguments - is too deep and vile to be attached to a leader of the entire country.

I just cannot see how he can be such a president without explaining away the newsletters convincingly. Until he does, I have to say that the balance of the endorsement must now go to Huntsman. Oddly, I think that Paul's courage in challenging the neocon establishment has made a Huntsman candidacy possible.

[U]ntil Paul fully explains this incident, in the kind of way Michael Tomasky recommends, I have to say there is an alternative, as I described at length in the endorsement: Jon Huntsman. He's what my super-ego tells me is the right choice.

You can read Michel Tomasky's article and timely questions referenced by Andrew here at The Daily Beast.

More Hypocrisy: Anti-gay MP Iris Robinson's Lover Said to Have Been under 21

I written before about Irish gay-hater, Iris Robinson (pictured at left), a Member of Parliament who condemned gays as sinners, advocated for reparative therapy, and pushed an anti-equality agenda. Recently, Ms. Robinson announced that she would be retiring from politics for health and family reasons. Turns out, Robinson must have been studying GOP politicians in the USA. It seems that the real story behind her resignation is that she was having an adulterous affair with Kirk McCambley (at far left), a man believed to be one third her age. Oh dear, another homophobic sinner caught by her own disregard of the "family values" standards she would impose on others. Of course, when it comes to hypocrisy, Ms. Robinson is in the good company of the child abusing Catholic Church. But maybe she just thought she really WAS Anne Bancroft in the movie, The Graduate. Both Pink News and the Daily Mail have more details. First some highlights from Pink News:

*
Homophobic Northern Ireland MP Iris Robinson's affair was thought to have been with a young man aged under 21 at the time. News channel UTV, which broke the story of her affair and suicide attempt yesterday, reported the claim this evening. Robinson, who is 60, said the affair and suicide attempt took place in March 2008. She said the "brief" liaison began "completely innocently" when she offered support to someone who had suffered a family death.
*
Earlier today, The Times reported that a BBC investigation into the finances of Robinson and her husband Peter, who is Northern Ireland's first minister, was what prompted her to reveal details of her affair and attempted suicide. The "embarrassing" television documentary was to be broadcast with allegations over the first family's financial affairs.
*
Robinson, a fundamentalist Christian, was labelled a bigot for a series of outbursts last year in which she made offensive comments about homosexuality. In 2008, she told the Belfast Telegraph that homosexuality was comparable to paedophilia. She also told a radio show that homosexuality was a mental illness and could be "cured".
*
Not surprisingly, the Dail Mail has some juicier tid bits on the affair and refers to McCambley as obinson's toyboy. Here are some highlights:
*
Last night sources close to Mrs Robinson revealed her lover's name to be Kirk McCambley - and they said he was 19 when the pair became involved 18 months ago. . . . They apparently met in March 2008 at the funeral of Mr McCambley's father, a friend of Mrs Robinson. The young man, now 21, owns the Lock Keeper's Inn in south Belfast. Details of the affair were revealed by the BBC in an interview with her husband. Last night it was claimed that Mrs Robinson organised a £50,000 loan to help her toyboy lover set up the restaurant business.
*
Mrs Robinson and Mr McCambley's affair lasted for around five months, ending after they allegedly rowed over the repayment of the money. . . In her statement she said: 'Everyone is paying a heavy price for my actions... I am so, so sorry. It had no emotional or lasting meaning, but my actions have devastated my life, and the lives of those around me.'
*

Her name will bring to mind the fictional Mrs Robinson, played by Anne Bancroft who had an affair with a man half her age, played by Dustin Hoffman, in the 1967 film The Graduate.

Washington Post Opposes Homophobe for Virginia Senate

Last November the totally unhinged Christianist, Ken Cuccinelli was elected attorney general of Virginia - a totally terrifying prospect - thus leaving his state senate seat open for a special election. The local GOP in Fairfax County has nominated an equally homophobic candidate, Stephen Hunt (pictured at left), a local school board member, to be Cuccinelli's successor. The Washington Post has come out with a strong endorsement of Hunt's Democrat opponent, Dave Marsden which, among other things looks at Hunt's anti-gay agenda and past abuse of his position to further homophobia in the public schools. Virginia truly does NOT need more nutcases in the General Assembly. Here are some highlights:

*
IN VIRGINIA, the two candidates running in a special election to fill the state Senate seat vacated by Attorney General-elect Ken Cuccinelli II, in western Fairfax County's District 37, offer voters a stark choice.
*
One of them, Dave W. Marsden, a Democrat, is a well-respected expert on incarceration, juvenile justice and rehabilitation, having run the Fairfax County Juvenile Detention Center for 17 years as well as the state's Department of Juvenile Justice, a position for which he was chosen by a Republican governor. Mr. Marsden has served two terms in the House of Delegates with distinction.
*
The other candidate, Stephen Hunt, a Republican, served a single term on the Fairfax County School Board; unusually for an incumbent, he failed to win reelection. Although he was hardworking, his tenure is remembered mainly for his being unanimously censured by his colleagues after he sent a letter to high school principals denouncing homosexuality as a "very destructive lifestyle" and urging them to expose students to former gays and lesbians who had rejected homosexuality.
*
Mr. Hunt's sin wasn't mouthing the usual platitudes of socially conservative orthodoxy; it's his consistently bad judgment. . . What Mr. Hunt offers is mainly cliches. Better to elect Mr. Marsden, who brings policy expertise, fiscal realism and sound judgment.
*

Again, Virginia already has too many members of the Christian Taliban holding public office. We do NOT need another one. I urge readers in the 37th District to make a point to get out and vote for Marsden.

Lizard Pope

This photo via Pam's House Blend was just too good to pass up. Frequent readers know that I hold Benedict XVI in extremely low regard as both a fraud, hypocrite and one who has utterly failed to punish bishops and cardinals who enabled and/or covered up the sexual abuse of minors. Benedict XVI has no moral standing to pretend to give moral guidance to anyone.

And as Pam noted: The Prada Papa Ratzi opens his trap again, and the homophobia stinks like trash piled up during a NYC garbage strike.

The Real Rick Warren Exposed

As the tempest over Barack Obama's selection of Christianist homophobe Rick Warren to give the inaugural invocation continues, there is one positive aspect that is perhaps being overlooked. Namely, that the real, nasty, gay hating, non-Christian hating Rick Warren is finally being exposed to the light of day. Too often the lazy, afraid to criticize Christianists main stream media simply gives people like Warren a pass and the true vileness of their agenda does not come out. Not any more - or at least not for Warren who is having all of his nastiness exposed. Whether or not Obama ultimately uninvites this bigot, he will not be able to continue to get the free pass that he has enjoyed to date. Democracy Now has an interview with Max Blumenthal that highlights this development. Here are some highlights:

*

Prior to this controversy, Rick Warren was, you know, proffered by the media as the voice of the new evangelical movement, which embraces environmentalism and fights poverty and is going to move beyond the old hobgoblins of the Christian right and the old, you know, draconian figures of the Christian right, like James Dobson and Pat Robertson. Rick Warren was supposed to be the pioneer of this new movement.

*

[B]ecause, you know, the media has expected evangelicals, especially conservative evangelicals, to be draconian and retrograde, you know, they’ve made a hero out of Rick Warren without looking at who he really is and what he really believes. . . . So, the real Rick Warren is someone who fights the culture war with a velvet glove. He even—he freely admitted to a reporter from the Wall Street Journal that the principal difference, the only difference, between him and James Dobson is a matter of tone.

*

And he’s [Warren]backed every anti-gay proposition that’s come down the pike in California in the last ten years, including Proposition 22, which laid the groundwork for Proposition 8. He joined up with James Dobson and Charles Colson and Tony Perkins and these people to do this. Beyond that, he compares pro-choice advocates to Holocaust deniers.

*

Rick Warren has a doctrine of women’s submission, which he preaches to his church, and he tells the female members of his church that they have to support their husbands’ decisions, even if they make bad financial decisions, because women have to submit in a biblical manner to their husbands. So this goes way beyond being anti-gay. He’s, you know, patriarchal. He’s supported assassinating Iran’s president.

*

[T]he question is, where does Barack Obama draw the line when someone demonizes a segment of Americans? Is this person really fit to address the nation and confer God’s blessing on the entire United States of America, when Rick Warren freely admits that he only believes that a small segment of Americans are going to heaven and that the rest of us are going to burn in an everlasting lake of fire? That’s the question.

*

Personally, I believe that Obama's selection of Warren is an abomination - to use a term the gay-haters love - and I have discarded all of my Obama signs and campaign materials (as have other gays that I know, some of whom donated plenty of money to his campaign). Should Obama fail to uninvite Warren, I suspect the failure will ultimate haunt him. In the meantime, I hope more and more Americans come to know what a douche bag Warren is in reality. I am going to do my best to disseminate the truth as widely as possible.