Trump/Pence Regime Ends Diplomatic Visas for UN Same-Sex Partners

Since taking office, Donald Trump, Mike Pence and their minions Jeff Sessions and Betsy DeVos have waged an unceasing war on LGBT Americans, keeping Trump's frightening promises to Christofascist leaders in June, 2016.  If confirmed, Brett Kavanaugh would likely use his position on the Supreme Court to further rescind rights and protections for LGBT Americans.  But Trump/Pence is not limiting its attacks to LGBT Americans.  Now, partners of LGBT diplomats to the United Nations will lose their visas if they are not legally married.  The move is not motivated by a desire to encourage same-sex marriage, but rather to force such partners from the USA since many countries still do not permit same sex marriage.  A piece in the BBC looks at this foul move which will make Christofascist hate merchants happy.  Never under estimate the cruelty and pettiness of Trump/Pence and its Christofascist supporters.   Here are story excerpts:

The US has announced it will deny diplomatic visas to same-sex partners of foreign diplomats and United Nations employees.  The change went into effect on Monday, giving partners currently in the US until 31 December to leave, get married or otherwise change their visa. It is a reversal of rules introduced in 2009.

Currently, 25 countries have recognised same-sex marriage. Homosexuality remains illegal in 71 countries.

The new Trump administration policy update was circulated in a United Nations (UN) memo. The memo states: "As of 1 October 2018, same-sex domestic partners accompanying or seeking to join newly arrived United Nations officials must provide proof of marriage to be eligible for a G-4 visa or to seek a change into such status." G-4 visas are granted to employees of international organisations and their immediate families.

According to the State Department, "only a relationship legally considered to be a marriage in the jurisdiction where it took place establishes eligibility as a spouse for immigration purposes".

[C]ritics have called the move unfair to homosexual partners, given a large number of countries do not recognise same-sex marriage. Former US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power decried the policy, calling it "needlessly cruel and bigoted".

The UN-Globe, advocates for LGBT equality in the UN, said the Trump administration's new policy was "an unfortunate change in rules".

"Couples already inside of the United States could go to city hall and get married. But they could potentially be exposed to prosecution if they return to a country that criminalises homosexuality or same-sex marriages."

After the end of this year, unmarried same-sex partners of diplomats and UN employees will be expected to leave the US within 30 days if they remain unmarried and without a visa status change.

The only exception, however, would be same-sex partners of officials coming from countries that do not recognise same-sex marriage. They will be granted a diplomatic visa if the government which sends them to work in their embassies in the US grants the same privileges to same-sex partners of US officials sent to that country.

The new policy is a reversal of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's 2009 decision to allow same-sex domestic partners of foreign officials diplomatic visas.  State Department officials say there are around 105 families total that could be affected by the policy.

Akshaya Kumar, the Deputy UN Director of Human Rights Watch, wrote that the change "will have an insidious impact on same-sex couples".  "The US government should recognise, as it had for almost nine years until today, that requiring a marriage as proof of bona fide partnership is a bad and cruel policy, one that replicates the terrible discrimination many LGBT people face in their own countries, and should be immediately reversed."

Wednesday Morning Male Beauty

The Angry White Male Caucus

Donald Trump and his racist campaign tore America apart.  The hearings on spoiled rich boy - and seemingly abusive drunk - Brett Kavanaugh has only served to further inflame the animosity that Trump/Pence set loose.  But behind all of the hate and venom there is ultimately one thing: white anger over feared loss of special privilege.  While much of the anger is centered in white working class males, the same fear anger/seems to motivate a number of affluent white men - and women, some of whom are "friends" and fellow members of the yacht club I belong to.  How these women go to church each Sunday and feign piety and moral decency is dumbfounding.  The same, of course, applies to the affluent men, but at least they (other than Christofascists) have the honesty of putting on less false piety and sanctimoniousness than their wives.  A column in the New York Times looks at this white anger and rage that further dispels  the myth of economic anxiety being the motivating factor for Trump voters. Here are highlights:

When Matt Damon did his Brett Kavanaugh imitation on “Saturday Night Live,” you could tell that he nailed it before he said a word. It was all about the face — that sneering, rage-filled scowl. Kavanaugh didn’t sound like a judge at his Senate hearing last week, let alone a potential Supreme Court justice . . .

But then again, Lindsey Graham, who went through the hearing with pretty much the same expression on his face, didn’t look much like a senator, either.

There have been many studies of the forces driving Trump support, and in particular the rage that is so pervasive a feature of the MAGA movement. What Thursday’s hearing drove home, however, was that white male rage isn’t restricted to blue-collar guys in diners. It’s also present among people who’ve done very well in life’s lottery, whom you would normally consider very much part of the elite.

In other words, hatred can go along with high income, and all too often does.

At this point there’s overwhelming evidence against the “economic anxiety” hypothesis — the notion that people voted for Donald Trump because they had been hurt by globalization. In fact, people who were doing well financially were just as likely to support Trump as people who were doing badly.

What distinguished Trump voters was, instead, racial resentment. Furthermore, this resentment was and is driven not by actual economic losses at the hands of minority groups, but by fear of losing status in a changing country, one in which the privilege of being a white man isn’t what it used to be.

And here’s the thing: It’s perfectly possible for a man to lead a comfortable, indeed enviable life by any objective standard, yet be consumed with bitterness driven by status anxiety.

And this sort of high-end resentment, the anger of highly privileged people who nonetheless feel that they aren’t privileged enough or that their privileges might be eroded by social change, suffuses the modern conservative movement.

It starts, of course, at the top, with that walking, talking, golfing bundle of resentment that is Donald Trump. You might imagine that a man who lives in the White House would no longer feel the need to, for example, make false claims about his college record. But Trump still doesn’t get the respect he obviously craves.

Indeed, it seems apparent that his jihad against Barack Obama was fueled by envy: Obama was a black man who was also a class act, with all the grace and poise Trump lacks. And Trump couldn’t stand it.

As a lot of reporting shows, the angry face Kavanaugh presented to the world last week wasn’t something new, brought on by the charges of past abuse. Classmates from his Yale days describe him as a belligerent heavy drinker even then. His memo to Ken Starr as he helped harass Bill Clinton — in which he declared that “it is our job to make his pattern of revolting behavior clear” — shows rage as well as cynicism.

And Kavanaugh, like Trump, is still in the habit of embellishing his academic record after all these years, declaring that he got into Yale despite having “no connections.” In fact, he was a legacy student whose grandfather went there.  Indeed, my guess is that his privileged roots are precisely why he’s so angry.

But it’s privilege under siege. An increasingly diverse society no longer accepts the God-given right of white males from the right families to run things, and a society with many empowered, educated women is finally rejecting the droit de seigneur once granted to powerful men.

And nothing makes a man accustomed to privilege angrier than the prospect of losing some of that privilege, especially if it comes with the suggestion that people like him are subject to the same rules as the rest of us.

So what we got last week was a view into the soul of Trumpism. It’s not about “populism” — it would be hard to find a judge as anti-worker as Brett Kavanaugh. Instead, it’s about the rage of white men, upper class as well as working class, who perceive a threat to their privileged position. And that rage may destroy America as we know it.

Sorry, but I have no sympathy for these angry whites who see minorities, gays, and women as threatening their special rights and privileges. 

More Tuesday Male Beauty

The Disingenuousness of Vulnerable House Republicans

To be a Republican nowadays means one's stock in trade is lies and misogyny, yet on the campaign trail one sees the lies most sharply, especially among vulnerable Republican House members.  In the Virginia 2nd District, Scott Taylor is lying through his teeth and misrepresenting his lock step voting with Trump and the GOP leadership.  At a Hampton Arts Foundation event over the weekend, he was so sleazy and dishonest I wanted to wash my hand after he insisted on shaking my hand.  Move westward in Virginia and similar intentional misrepresentations are being disseminated by David Brat who is even more repugnant than Taylor.   A piece in Politico looks at the deliberate dishonesty of these Republican candidates who like Scott Taylor are trying to desperately dupe independents and moderates to believe they are not lock step with Trump.  Here are excerpts:

Vulnerable House Republicans have to lead double lives these days if they hope to hang on.

Take Dave Brat. At a private fundraiser in early September, the Virginia Republican joked to a roomful of Republicans about how he mimics archconservative House Freedom Caucus founder Jim Jordan on Fox News when discussing the FBI’s Russia investigation.

But in TV ads, Brat has touted his work on issues that transcend party lines. One of them features images of puppies playing with children, and a narrator touting the congressman's work “to stop a federal agency from conducting cruel medical research on dogs.”

The two sides of Brat, a member of the Freedom Caucus, highlight the dissonant strategies House Republicans are deploying in their struggle to keep the House. As national Republicans implore endangered members to localize their races and tout bipartisan victories, hard-liners are urging them to embrace the president to get Trump voters to the polls.

Survival might ultimately depend on Republicans successfully doing both — not an easy feat since Democrats are reminding voters of their ties to Trump at every opportunity. But the conundrum is clear: GOP office-holders in swing districts can’t afford to repel independents by appearing too cozy with Trump, yet they also need Trump’s followers to turn out in force.

“I would argue it's best in the vast majority of congressional seats to nationalize the election,” Jordan, a guest speaker, told the crowd during the fundraiser for Brat in Arlington, Va., on Sept. 7, according to the recording.

The advice is quite different from that being given by Republican leaders, who as recently as three weeks ago encouraged vulnerable members to run hyper-local races, focusing on their legislative accomplishments and de-emphasizing the president.

Instead of choosing one path or another, many Republicans appear to be trying to do both, adjusting their tones depending on the audience.  Democrats have held up partisan comments Republicans have made to base voters as evidence that their more moderate tone toward independents is phony.

Brat isn’t the only vulnerable Republican who’s welcomed help from his friends on the far right while trying to hold off a blue wave from the left. Jordan has been raising money and stumping for other Freedom Caucus conservatives in tough races.

He’s appeared with many of them at fundraisers or events aimed at turning out Republicans. In recent weeks Jordan sent emails soliciting donations to help Reps. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), Debbie Lesko (R-Ariz.), Ted Budd (R-N.C.) and Rod Blum (R-Iowa), all top Democratic targets.

During a recent event with Republican women in Southern California, Republican candidate Diane Harkey described the predicament she's facing in trying to succeed Darrell Issa in a swing district. According to a recording obtained by POLITICO, Harkey said, “We need to get the Trump voters out” and tried to brainstorm ways to do it while also attracting independents.

“In order to hold this election, we're going to have to get Republican voters to vote at least 2 percentage points higher than they normally do in a midterm,” she said. . . . . Harkey proposed that local Republicans make the election about Democrats potentially trying to impeach Trump and roll back the GOP tax cuts.

Jordan has encouraged Republicans to go even further. At the Brat event, he suggested that GOP leaders were in part to blame for Republican Rick Saccone’s loss to Conor Lamb in a Pennsylvania special election earlier this year. Their sin: running “cookie cutter traditional campaign” ads accusing Lamb of being a Pelosi puppet [Scott Taylor is running such ads].

"Even in these suburban districts," Jordan said, "you still have to run toward the president to bring our team out.”

For anyone believing Taylor's and Brat's intentional lies, I have some ocean front property in Colorado I want to sell to you.

Tuesday Morning Male Beauty

Are Brett Kavanaugh’s Lies Finally Catching Up With Him?

As we wait for the renewed FBI investigation of sexual misconduct allegations against Trump nominee, Brett Kavanaugh to deliver its findings, the news media reports are increasingly underscoring that Kavanaugh has been lying to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Between statements by Kavanaugh's college roommate that flat out states that Kavanaugh lied about his frequent and excessive drinking to new stories about email sent by Kavanaugh in his efforts to contact would be witnesses to do damage control before additional allegations became public, it is increasingly clear Kavanaugh's persona presented to the Senate Judiciary Committee is a fraud.  Indeed, countless Americans who watched the hearings are now first hand witnesses to the series of lies.  A piece in New York Magazine looks at Kavanaugh's cascading series of lies.  Here are article highlights: 

When the second sexual-assault allegation came out against Brett Kavanaugh, I predicted Republicans would pull his nomination. I was wrong. Kavanaugh managed to rally the Republican base like a seasoned politician, changing the question from the specifics of the allegations into a broader cultural war, in which Kavanaugh is a stand-in for every conservative who feels unfairly maligned by smug progressive elites (i.e, every conservative).

Sticking with Kavanaugh made no sense, and still makes no sense. Sometimes people do things that make no sense, though. And Republicans may well decide Kavanaugh’s confirmation is a symbolic battle in the kulturkampf that overrides any cost-benefit analysis. That is certainly what the public posturing by the Republican Party, as epitomized by Lindsey Graham, seems to indicate. But there are real signs of weakness beneath the public bravado.

A pair of weekend reports from Axios’s Jonathan Swan conveys the White House’s outward-facing stance. According to administration officials, Kavanaugh is “too big to fail,” because “[t]here’s no time before the [midterm] election to put up a new person.” And if Democrats win a Senate majority, Trump would allegedly prefer to keep the seat vacant rather than compromise with Democrats. . . . . but the position makes absolutely no sense.

If Kavanaugh fails, there might not be enough time to confirm a new justice before the elections, but there will certainly be enough time to confirm one before a new Senate takes over. There are almost two months between the elections and the new Senate. Yes, it would look ugly for Republicans to rush through a new justice after an election that gives Democrats a majority. . . . But this would never stop them from going ahead. The entire Republican caucus, including Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, blatantly violated historic norms by holding a Supreme Court spot vacant through all of 2016 just to give their party a chance to fill it.

Unless the Trump administration is completely ignorant, it is broadcasting threats in order to shore up Republican support for Kavanaugh. Republicans senators may want to pull the damaged nominee and replace him with an equally conservative justice who was never accused of raping anybody, but the White House is shouting that the alternative is getting nobody at all. And why would they make such non-credible threats? Because they’re worried about getting the votes.

That worry also comes through in some of the other reporting. Republicans directing the Kavanaugh fight “conceded [it] to be an uphill battle in which time is not on their side,” reports Politico, also citing a person involved in the battle who puts the odds of confirmation at 50 percent.

The FBI investigation into Kavanaugh is now the key source of uncertainty. Multiple news outlets have reported over the weekend that the White House has dictated limits on the investigation. . . . If the White House chokes off the FBI investigation — or, more precisely, if wavering Republican senators allow the White House to do so and decide to treat an ersatz probe as legitimate — then Kavanaugh might be safe. But the fact that the administration is attempting to strangle the FBI is itself a sign of concern. And the fact that the FBI is obviously leaking about White House interference shows that at least somebody within the Bureau wants to conduct a legitimate investigation.

And what is there to turn up? Potentially a lot. Kavanaugh’s testimony was, at best, wildly misleading.  You can find detailed accounts of Kavanaugh’s train of lies here, here, here, and (most thoroughly) here. Would it matter if this is proven? Senator Jeff Flake said on 60 Minutes it would . . . .

This substantially increases the peril Kavanaugh faces. And Trump’s press conference remarks seemed to signal a willingness to cut Kavanaugh loose if the investigation turns up more damning evidence.

The issue of Kavanaugh’s lying is one his conservative defenders have only barely begun to acknowledge. It is probably the central weakness in his candidacy at the moment. Kavanaugh wrote his opening statement the night before his testimony. It was intended to rally his party with red-meat partisan rhetoric, and lead directly to a rapid vote in a flourish of tribalistic emotion. It was not intended to survive a week of close factual scrutiny by the media or potentially the FBI.

Republicans have already prepared a fallback position that Kavanaugh’s underlying offenses happened a long time ago and should not disqualify him. It will be interesting to watch them develop a defense of his perjury.

“The logical implication of a ‘no’ vote is that a man with a flawless record of public service lied not only to the public but to his wife, his children and his community,” writes Kimberly Strassel today. “Any Republican who votes against Judge Kavanaugh is implying that he committed perjury in front of the Senate, and should resign or be impeached from his current judicial position, if not charged criminally.”

Well, yes. Kavanaugh has told many, many lies. This doesn’t make him a “sociopath.” Kavanaugh probably believes he did terrible things as a boy, but grew up to be a man who treats women respectfully. . . . He also calculated that any partial defense would come unraveled, and settled from the outset on a stance of total denial. This is why he has told lie after lie after lie.

But now Kavanaugh is caught in those lies. He is worried that two Republicans senators might decide they’d rather vote for a justice who hasn’t flagrantly perjured himself. And this fear has legitimate basis.

Trump/the GOP Can’t Win the War on Demography

I for one hope that 2016 and the nightmare election of Der Trumpenführer will prove to be the last gasp of aging right wing/Christofascist whites in their attempt to turn back time and magically stop the demographic changes sweeping the nation.  True, wherever possible, Republicans will strive to disenfranchise non-whites and the young, but those efforts will sooner or later fail to stop the wave of demographic change that will make both whites and traditional Christians a minority in America.  Candidly, in my view, that ultimate defeat of the GOP and Trump voters cannot come soon enough.  Perhaps being gay - a hated minority to many - makes one open their eyes to the failings and ugliness of the majority as well as the common humanity of other minorities.  Whatever the cause, I simple cannot understand the hysterical fear of those who are different. A column in the New York Times looks at the unwinnable war Trump and the racist GOP are fighting.  It also looks at the distortions in policies and funding that the quest to maintain "whiteness" will have on the country.  Here are column highlights:

Since the early days of his campaign, from his proposal to build a wall along the Mexican border to his discredited committee on voter fraud, President Trump has declared war on America’s changing demography. His administration has followed through on that strategy with a proposal to add a question to the 2020 census asking about citizenship.

If it is added to the census form, the citizenship question will distort our understanding of who resides in the country. What this selective underenumeration will not do is make America’s growing racial minority populations disappear. The losers from this undercount include members of Mr. Trump’s older white base, who will suffer from lost investments in a younger generation, whose successes and contributions to the economy will be necessary to keep America great.

The demographic trends make this plain. America’s white population is growing tepidly because of substantial declines among younger whites. Since 2000, the white population under the age of 18 has shrunk by seven million, and declines are projected among white 20-somethings and 30-somethings over the next two decades and beyond. This is a result of both low fertility rates among young whites and modest white immigration — a trend that is not likely to change despite Mr. Trump’s wish for more immigrants from Norway.

The likely source of future gains among the nation’s population of children, teenagers and young working adults is minorities — Hispanics, Asians, blacks and others — most of whom are born in the United States.

Indeed, the only part of the white population that is growing appreciably is older people, the same group to whom Mr. Trump is appealing. Thanks to aging baby boomers, the older retirement-age white population will grow by one-third over the next 15 years and, with it, the need for the government to support Social Security, Medicare, hospitals and the like. Revenue for these programs will have to come from the younger minority population.

Although the slowly growing, rapidly aging white population will be accurately counted, the fast-growing minority school-age and young adult populations that represent the nation’s future will not get their due — demographically, politically or economically.

An in-house Census Bureau analysis based on 2010 survey data found that the inclusion of a citizenship question reduced the response rate among households that have at least one noncitizen individual. While 7 percent of United States residents are themselves noncitizens, 14 percent live in households that include one or more noncitizens. The latter figure rises to 46 percent among all Hispanics and to 45 percent among Asian-Americans, compared with just 8 percent among blacks and 3 percent among whites.

Let’s assume that one in three people in Hispanic and Asian noncitizen households refuses to answer the census. If that’s the case, the Hispanic share of the United States population would drop by 2.1 percentage points (from 17.3 to 15.2 percent) and the total white population share would rise by 2.2 percentage points (from 62 to 64.2 percent).

This imbalance would influence congressional reapportionment, hurting large, immigrant-heavy states. It will also shape how congressional and state legislative districts are drawn, favoring rural and small areas at the expense of large metropolitan areas, since noncitizen households are far more prevalent in the latter.

The underenumeration of racial minorities would also misallocate billions of dollars in state and federal funds for housing assistance, job training, community development and a variety of social services that should be distributed on the basis of census counts. It would provide a faulty framework for surveys that will inform thousands of policy and business decisions, such as where to locate schools, hospitals, employment sites or retail establishments catering to different population groups, over the next decade.

Through his rhetoric and actions, Mr. Trump stands for keeping America white, appealing to his base by implicitly promising to preserve the racial status quo. But Mr. Trump’s supporters, and the country in general, must not ignore the generational dependency between older whites and younger minorities. Forcing an inaccurate accounting of who resides in the nation will have long-term negative consequences for everyone.

For the record, both the husband and I have extended family members who are of mixed race..  Some are half Asian and others are part black.  All are decent and responsible individuals - far more decent than Trump's bigoted and hypocrisy-filled base.

More Monday Male Beauty

Working Americans Are Worse off Under Trump

Apologists for white working class Trump voters have continued to cling to the false meme that "economic anxiety" drove them to vote for rump rather than admit that it was Trump's calls for open racism against non-whites and Hispanics that proved to be the true motivation.  Yet, if one believes the myth put out by apologists, then economic anxiety should now be driving these voters away from Trump.  Why, because real earnings have fallen during the first 18 months of Trump/Pence's tenure whereas they rose during the last 18 months of the Obama administration.  Thus, what we have witnessed is what the Republican Party has used as its mode of operation for years: getting white voters to vote against their own best economic interests by playing to bigotry and racism.  A column in the Washington Post looks at the fall of earnings adjusted for inflation and how the Trump/Pence regime has been deceptively reporting wage earnings.  Here are highlights:

Despite robust economic numbers during the Trump presidency, the American public has seemed curiously unmoved by such good news as the lowest U.S. unemployment level in nearly half a century. Its enthusiasm might have been dampened by this underappreciated economic reality: The typical working American's earnings, when properly measured, have declined during the Trump administration.

As any White House would, the president's economic team touts positive earnings data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that suggest rising wages and salaries. But the figures are misleading. They focus not on how much an average working person earns but on the "average earnings" of all employed people. In times of rising inequality, employees at the top pull up "average" earnings. . . . Another catch: The data used by the White House doesn't account for inflation. Adjust the median earnings data for inflation, and the illusion of progress evaporates.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics has a different database for that view, and its quarter-by-quarter numbers show a very different picture. Median weekly earnings of all workers rose from $865 in the first quarter of 2017 to $876 in the quarter ending June 30, 2018. The typical working American's earnings increased $11 weekly over 18 months, barely more than one-quarter of the economic progress touted by the White House.

Even that modest gain is not very meaningful. The significance of what people earn lies in what they can do with their earnings, and inflation eats away at what any of us can purchase or save. As a result, serious earnings analysis is always framed in inflation-adjusted, or "real," terms. From January 2017 to June 2018, inflation totaled 3.77 percent, while the $11 increase in unadjusted weekly earnings over those 18 months represented gains of 1.27 percent.

The result: $876 in June 2018 had the same value as $848.20 in January 2017. In real terms, the weekly earnings of a typical working American fell $16.80, or 1.9 percent, during Donald Trump's first 18 months as president. . . . Using the same measure, real median weekly earnings increased substantially during Barack Obama's final 18 months as president.

In real terms, the weekly earnings of a typical employed American increased $35.82, or 4.5 percent, over Obama's last 18 months in office, growing from $803 in the third quarter of 2015 to $838.82 in the fourth quarter of 2016.

In Ronald Reagan's succinct terms, average working Americans are worse off under the Trump presidency than they were under Obama's. Yes, low unemployment is something to applaud, but there might be a good reason that so many who have jobs aren't clapping.