More Christmas Eve Male Beauty

Christian Nationalists' 2019 Anti-Gay, Special Rights Legislative Playbook

As I have often noted, in my more than 25 years tracking "Christian" "family values" organizations, with the exception of perhaps Donald Trump, no one lies more often and disingenuously.  Currently, the favored ruse for gaining special rights for themselves and exemptions from the laws that govern everyone else is the false flag of "religious freedom." The evangelical/Christofascist definition of religious freedom is in reality, the direct opposite of true religious freedom and aims at forcing all of society to accept their poisonous religious beliefs or, failing that, to allow the Pharisee like Christofascists to ignore non-discrimination laws, public accommodation laws, and in the realm of health care, to refuse to treat those they dislike.  Gays, of course, are a favored target, but by extension every other minority group can be targeted through cherry picking bible passages to justify what in truth is nothing more than unvarnished hate and bigotry. As we near 2019 and a new legislative year, the enemies of true religious freedom are preparing to try to turn some of the hate-filled policies into law.  Sadly, one of the architects of this ugly agenda is a Chesapeake, Virginia organization headed by former Congressman Randy Forbes.  A piece in Rewire looks at this anti-religious freedom for all endeavor.  Here are highlights:

State legislatures across the country became showcases for Christian nationalist legislation in 2018. Leading the charge was the ominously named Project Blitz—a coalition of Christian Right groups that are unambiguous about their intentions for the short and long term, to restore America to a Christian nation that never was. The Christian Right groups behind Project Blitz—The Chesapeake, Virginia-based Congressional Prayer Caucus Foundation; the National Legal Foundation; and the Wallbuilders Pro-Family Legislators Conference—have published a new state legislative playbook for 2019. [A]bout 74 Project Blitz model bills were considered in 2018. “More than 60 percent involved promoting Christianity in public schools; more than a third were ‘In God We Trust’ display bills,” according to reporting from Church & State.   [O]thers sought to provide religious exemptions (or refusals) from the law in ways that would affect access to reproductive and LGBTQ health care. These included versions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) which had been rebranded as the “Preserving Religious Freedom Act” and the “Marriage Tolerance Act.” . . . . bills are intended to pave the way for far more serious legislation involving religious exemptions from civil rights laws such as FADA, which may be seen as decisive moves towards a theocratic state. Indeed, the 2019 manual, “Report and Analysis on Religious Freedom Measures Impacting Prayer and Faith in America,” is as clear as the previous version in its promotion of a Christian nationalist view of history and a long-term Dominionist political vision that’s profoundly at odds with what most would consider a reasonable approach to religious freedom. While there’s usually some room for religious tolerance on the part of Christian nationalists, there is no tolerance—at least not in the long run—from Dominionists who sustain a long-term vision of organizing all of society and government according to their understanding of the Bible. [A] . . . . Prime Focus, “Resolution Establishing Public Policy Favoring Intimate Sexual Relations Only Between Married, Heterosexual Couples” was published in the current and previous playbooks. The apparent purpose of the nonbinding model resolutions is to help to persuade legislators and executive branch program administrators that not only religious, but also public health, exemptions from the law need to be created, and perhaps litigated, to chip away at marriage equality so that not all marriages need be treated equally under the law. In addition they aim to more generally erode the rights of LGBTQ people. Resolutions on heterosexual marriage, birth gender, and adoption are, they assert, intended to advance “biblical values.” The claim is that there’s sufficient social science data and research in support of their view . . . . refers to pages of material of questionable scientific value about LGBTQ people, leading to the conclusion that LGBTQ people are diseased and dysfunctional. These are used in their argument, for example, in the anti-adoption and foster care bill, to suggest that LGBTQ people are a threat to children. This led them to title the model bill the “Child Protection Act.”   Finally, there is a new section titled “Talking Points to Counter Anti-Religious Freedom Legislation.” This section insists that there cannot be inherent civil rights regarding “sexual orientation” because the term is too vague and there is too much disagreement over its meaning. Similarly, the manual declares: The term “gender identity” has no fixed meaning and, by definition, is the product of an individual, subjective determination that may conflict with how the individual objectively appears to others. Because of its subjectivity, the term can be used by an individual in a temporally inconsistent manner, and legislation based on its use is vague and violates due process.

The manual goes on to detail arguments against bans on “conversion therapy” that have been enacted in several states and against repeal of state RFRAs. 

Project Blitz . . . . also reflects the central anti-abortion politics of our time. . . . one bill, (“Licensed Professional Civil Rights Act”) on conscience clause exemptions in professional licensing standards has implications for health workers and pharmacists (who might seek religious exemptions for their role in providing contraception or abortion care), as well mental health practitioners who refuse to help LBGTQ patients. It should also be noted that versions of state-level  RFRAs and FADAs include generous religious exemptions for both institutions and individuals on matters related to reproductive health care. The 2019 legislative session has not yet begun, but Project Blitz is already getting attention. . . . . Platt stressed the importance of preventing the Christian Right from distorting the meaning of religious freedom and bending it to their purposes. She stressed that “it’s really important to … remind ourselves what religious liberty really is, which is the freedom of individuals and communities to practice their religious beliefs, or to practice no religion, in a pluralistic society, free from government persecution, discrimination, or coercion. So this is a foundational constitutional value, and it’s a progressive value.” “They’ve managed to conflate that term [religious freedom] with particular, narrow protections for conservative religious beliefs about sex, marriage, and reproduction, while totally ignoring the enormous variety of views that we know people of faith—including Christians—have had on these matters. And, of course, ignoring completely the very existence of LGBTQ people of faith.”  “My takeaway from all of this would just be don’t play on their turf,” Platt said. “Don’t buy into their idea that all religious exemptions enhance religious liberty, and don’t buy into an inherent conflict between religious liberty and civil rights. These exemptions are … actually violating religious liberty.” 

Christmas Eve Male Beauty

Mattis Replacement: No Military, Government or Foreign Policy Experience

In what is the norm for many Trump/Pence appointees, the replacement for James Mattis as Secretary of Defense has no military experience, no previous government experience and little experience with foreign policy.  Patrick Shanahan, will become acting defense secretary on January 1, 2019, after Trump's temper tantrum  that is forcing Mattis out two months ahead of schedule. The frightening reality is that we have a madman in charge of the nuclear codes who is just as likely to make decisions based on the needs of his malignant narcissism as on sound advice from rational, senior military advisers. Be very, very afraid.  A piece in the Washington Post looks at the growing unease among the military.  Here are highlights:

An unspoken mantra has guided how senior military officials have navigated the Trump era: “Keep your head down.”

Faced with an impulsive [Trump]  president who has upended bedrock alliances and delivered policy bombshells by tweet, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and other Pentagon leaders have responded by confining themselves to executing orders, rebuilding military strength and trying to shelter their institution from the upheaval and drama.

For nearly two years, the approach produced dividends. . . . Last week, much of that came crumbling down, opening a period of uncertainty about how and when Trump will choose to employ force.

Against the advice of his generals, the president ordered an immediate withdrawal from ­Syria.

In the same meeting during which Trump issued his order on Syria, he decided to remove nearly half of the American troops in Afghanistan. Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr. — chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the president’s top military adviser — wasn’t even there, according to people familiar with the situation.

Two days later, Mattis had tendered his resignation, citing irreconcilable differences between Trump’s worldview and his own. Making his resignation letter public, the retired Marine general made clear that his departure was driven by principle — a moment of defiance for an official whose tenure was marked by his studied silence on a growing list of policy disagreements.

The fallout from the resignation continued Sunday. With coverage of Mattis’s departure painting Trump in a bad light, [Trump] the president moved up the Pentagon chief’s departure by two months and tapped his deputy, Patrick Shanahan, to become acting defense secretary on Jan. 1. Most worrisome for some military leaders, however, is the fear that their tradition of partisan neutrality — fundamental to maintaining public support — could be under threat.

“[Trump] The president is rapidly corroding the norms of civil-military relations that create the public respect for our military,” Schake said.

Kori Schake, deputy director general of the International Institute of Strategic Studies and co-editor of a book with Mattis, said research shows that, despite such efforts, public attitudes about the military are growing more politicized.

For his part, Mattis has sought to isolate the Pentagon from the political maelstrom by eschewing the spotlight and rarely appearing on camera. Given his disagreements with Trump on a host of issues, a crucial part of his strategy was to avoid conflict with his boss.

His [Trump’s] selection of Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley, an outspoken, connected officer, nearly a year before Dunford was scheduled to retire defied the recommendation of Mattis and raised the possibility that Dunford will not serve his entire term.

In addition to Milley, Trump will have the chance to appoint three chiefs of the military branches.

Retired Army Lt. Gen. David Barno, who was head of Combined Forces Command-Afghanistan from 2003 to 2005, said the current crop of military leaders had successfully steered the Trump administration toward a “middle ground” on key alliances, conflicts and more.

“Next year is where the real adventure starts,” he said. The period ahead “is going to be very challenging for the military at the Pentagon.”

Democrats Prepared to Force Mueller Report Release

With the Russiagate investigation seemingly closing in on Der Trumpenführer, many fear that Trump's unconstitutionally appointed acting Attorney General will be pressure to try to kill the release of the report as a last ditch effort to hide the criminality Trump and his circle of sycophants - and perhaps even their acts of treason - from the American Public. Now, Democrats who are about to take control of the House of Representatives a mere eleven (11) days from now are signalling that that effort to protect Trump and his co-conspirators will not be allowed and that the House will force the release of Robert Mueller's report. A piece at CNN looks at the Democrat vow to make the report public and to expose the wrongdoing expected to be revealed in the report.  With Trump's announcement that he will force James Mattis from the office of Secretary of Defense, some Republicans may be ready to see Trump taken down. Here are article excerpts:

California Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff said if President Donald Trump's attorneys try to assert executive privilege to stop the public release of special counsel Robert Mueller's eventual report, he would likely compel publication in some form.

"I'm prepared to make sure we do everything possible so that the public has the advantage of as much of the information as it can," Schiff said on CNN's "State of the Union." Schiff is expected to chair the House Intelligence Committee when Democrats take the chamber next month, and he said he would likely use his subpoena power to obtain and release Mueller's eventual report if he needed to. "Now, there may be parts of the report that have to be redacted because they involved classified information or they involve grand jury material," Schiff said, adding, "This case is just too important to keep from the American people what it's really about."
 Schiff also stressed his concern repeatedly about acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker. CNN reported previously that Whitaker disregarded the advice of a Justice Department ethics official to step aside from overseeing the Mueller probe and that Trump lashed out at Whitaker regarding the federal case against his former attorney Michael Cohen.   "This is exactly what we feared about Whitaker's appointment," Schiff said. He also vowed to conduct oversight of Whitaker and inform the public about the man leading the Justice Department following the ouster of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who had recused himself from oversight of the Russia investigation.  "We are going to scrutinize every single action by Matt Whitaker to make sure that the public knows just what he does," Schiff said.

Sunday Morning Male Beauty

GOP Leaders Won’t Tolerate Trump’s Chaos Much Longer

The Republican Party of my grand parents, parents and even the first 2/3's of my life is dead and gone and, in my view, will never return given the grip Christofascists and white supremacists have on the party base.  The days when intellect, knowledge, science and some modicum of respect for morality and decency are long gone best embodied by the election of Donald Trump, a Manchurian candidate if there ever was one. Yet, as a piece in New York Magazine argues, at some point the Vichy Republicans who have colluded with Trump's assault on America - likely at the direction of Vladimir Putin - will reach a breaking point when their desire for self-preservation outweighs their fear of being subjected to a primary challenge by someone base and immoral enough to be fancied by the Christofascists and white supremacists who rule the party.  Here are column highlights:

The beginning of the end of the Trump presidency came and went a long time ago. I have never wavered from my oft-stated convictions that (a) Trump will not finish out his term, and (b), the end will be triggered by a presidential meltdown that forces the Vichy Republicans in Washington to mount an insurrection — if only to save their own asses, not the country. This week was a big step toward that endgame, and surely one of the most remarkable weeks in American history. We have a president of the United States who is moving to shut down the government at the same moment that he is inviting America’s adversaries to breach its defenses. The withdrawals in Syria and Afghanistan, combined with the exit of the last top administration official who aspired to serve the national interest rather than Trump’s, invites hostile moves against the United States from ISIS, Russia, China, North Korea, and the Taliban. This has even grabbed the cynical Mitch McConnell’s attention: He has declared himself “distressed” by Mattis’s resignation, a major step in rhetorical escalation in a party where Susan Collins’s pathetic periodic expressions of “concern” are what pass for criticism of an outlaw president. [M]ore outrage from more GOP leaders will follow. What will move them is not necessarily Trump’s hara-kiri isolationist agenda but the damage his behavior both abroad and at home is inflicting on the financial markets. The sheer uncertainty of a chaos presidency is pushing the Dow to its worst December since the Great Depression. McConnell and his humiliated departing peer Paul Ryan have tolerated Trump’s racism, misogyny, and nativism, his wreckage of American alliances, his kleptocracy, and his allegiance to Vladimir Putin. They have tolerated as well his con job on the coal miners, steelworkers, and automobile-industry workers of his base. But they’ll be damned if they will stand for a president who threatens the bottom line of the GOP donor class. The Mattis resignation is huge. It’s not that he was the last “adult in the room” but that as a retired military man and a secretary of Defense with access to both foreign intelligence and the inner workings of the White House, he knows treason when he sees it. His resignation letter stops just short of saying that Trump is actively serving the “interests” of China and Russia as they try “to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model.”

[W]ho knows where America will be or who will be in charge by the time we get to Mattis’s announced February departure date, more than two months from now. The country is going to be riveted by the televised testimony of lawyered-up Trump lackeys as they face the inquisitors of Nancy Pelosi’s Congress.

What we are likely to see in the meantime: further indictments of Trump family members and other close associates; a complete halt to governance in Washington whether there’s actually a government shutdown or not; new overt and covert threats to national security; a further effort by Trump to destabilize the Federal Reserve and assault its chairman; and perhaps, at last, an intervention by those Vichy Republicans, in the financial sector as well as in the capital, who see their own necks on the line.

But meanwhile, we have more than two weeks in store of watching an isolated madman rampaging through the gilded rooms of Mar-a-Lago, wreaking whatever damage he can on the country as the walls of justice continue to close in on him. Happy New Year!

Saturday Morning Male Beauty

At a Crossroads for Republican "Friends"

Back in September of this year, the New York Times ran an op-ed allegedly authored by an anonymous insider at the Trump White House who sought to justify his collusion with a dangerous and malignant occupant as a form of "resistance" and effort to basically protect the nation from Trump's worse impulses and excesses.  Stated another way, the author tried to convince readers that he/she had not thrown away all morality and decency despite the appearances of having made a pact with the devil.  Fast forward three months and the chaos and corruption at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has only intensified with the stock market having its worse December since the midst of the Great Depression, military decisions being made that appear to be huge gifts to Russia under the ruse of bringing the troops home, and acts of criminality circling closer and closer to direct connections Trump. An editorial in today's New York Times responds to the anonymous author of the September op-ed which challenges the pretense that unknown author presented.  By extension, the challenge extends to every one of my Republican "friends" who voted for Trump: are you going to stand for morality, decency and the rule of law or will you stand with Trump.  You simply cannot have it both ways and, yes, you will be judged by how you decide.  Here are highlights from today's column:

In September, you acknowledged that you were a member of the “quiet resistance” within Donald Trump’s administration. You told us that you and others were “working diligently” to “frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.” You said that while you agreed with many of the president’s policies, you were appalled by the president’s amorality, his chaotic management, his “repetitive rants,” his fondness for dictators.

You also believed that your efforts to resist Trump were often successful. On foreign policy, you noted, the administration’s policies were far more sober and serious than the president’s reckless rhetoric.

You were wrong. This week proves it. Assuming you haven’t departed the administration already, now would be the time for you to go. Ditto for all of your fellow “resisters.”

This is the central lesson of James Mattis’s stunning resignation on Thursday. . . . But Mattis is the highest-ranking cabinet member to resign over differences of policy and principle since Cyrus Vance quit the State Department in 1980 after Jimmy Carter’s Desert One fiasco. He is the only defense secretary to leave this way since the position was created in 1947.
 Mattis resigned because he no longer shares your analysis. He no longer believes he can be a steadying or blocking force in the councils of government because it isn’t clear there are “councils of government.” A president who sticks it to his own team while sticking with a foreign strongman is not worth sticking by.

Mattis also resigned because he has concluded that the problem with Trump isn’t that he’s an empty vessel. It’s that he’s a malignant one.

Here was the fundamental mistake in your view of Trump: You thought he could be handled. You thought of him as a child who simply needed to be kept away from dangerous toys, as former economic adviser Gary Cohn did when he removed a letter from the president’s desk ordering the end of the Korea-U.S. free trade agreement.

But our Commodus-in-Chief isn’t just an irascible buffoon whose worst impulses can be confined to Twitter but whose policy instincts largely align with yours. Trump thinks of himself as a man of ideas. Withdrawal from Syria, along with partial withdrawal from Afghanistan, is consonant with the quasi-isolationism he’s preached for decades. He is sympathetic to Erdogan, as he is to other tyrants, because he is indifferent to considerations of human rights and civil liberties.

The Trump Doctrine is the doctrine of unaccountability. It’s also the doctrine of dishonor. And this is what should most concern you and whatever is left of your in-house resistance. The United States is about to abandon our allies to the tender mercies of thugs. We are breaking our word to those who helped us decimate the Islamic State. We are standing aside so that Erdogan, Bashar al-Assad, Vladimir Putin, and the Taliban can roll in, and ISIS can fight on.

Until now, you may have convinced yourself that real honor lay in putting up with it — with the craziness of your boss and the disdain of your neighbors — because the good of the country (as you see it) demanded it. And until now, you had Mattis to serve as your role model.

But Mattis is going. And the argument can no longer be sustained. If Trump is capable of doing this to Mattis, what’s to keep him from soiling your carpet, too? And even if he never gets to it, you must know by now that you are no longer keeping a bad thing from getting worse. All you are doing is disguising how bad it is, thereby helping it to become worse.

Trump will never have trouble surrounding himself with ambitious and unscrupulous flunkies. Do you want that to describe you? Get out while you still can, whoever you are.  

For Fox News readers, Commodus was a Roman emperor who was assassinated in no small part due to his megalomania and increasingly tyrannical rule.  Upon his death, the Senate declared him a public enemy and all statutes of him were destroyed. 

Have Americans Finally Had Enough of Trump

One thing often missing from the political narrative is the reality that less than 30% of eligible voters voted for Donald Trump. The man lost the popular vote and never had any mandate despite his - and the GOP's - delusions to the contrary.  The 2018 midterm elections for the House of Representatives with a flip of 40 seats to Democrats showed the broad revulsion toward  Trump.  Some will try to point to GOP gains in the Senate to argue against this reality, but look at the states where the GOP wins occurred: all are increasing backwater states that are being left behind in the new economy.  On top of that, the 2020 map for the GOP in the Senate elections will be far less favorable that was the case in 2018. If the economy continues to stall as many see happening and moves to recession, the bloodbath for the GOP could be horrific. Thus, the question becomes one of whether the majority of Americans have reached the point where they have had enough of Trump - and hopefully Pence as well - and the pressure will grow to see him removed from office.  A column in the Washington Post by a former Republican looks at this question.  Here are column excerpts:

Trump may have misread — if was reading at all — the vast majority of Americans' patience for an hysterical, chaos-creating and non-functioning president. What in the past worked to delight his audience and throw mainstream media off balance (e.g., a new scandal to replace an old one, vicious personal attacks on opponents and the press, new stock market highs) no longer works to keep his leaky ship of state afloat. Shutting down the government, rewarding Russia and Iran in the Middle East, losing Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and sending the markets reeling may have moved us to a tipping point, the moment when lawmakers and voters decide Trump is far more trouble than he’s worth. Once the realization hits that he’s a net drag on the economy and a needless headache, the country is collectively far more willing to consider grounds for getting rid of him. Coming at a time of maximum chaos (perhaps what precipitated the chaos overload) are significant legal developments — Michael Cohen pleading guilty to a crime Trump directed, Michael Flynn getting bashed for a favorite conspiracy theory of the kooky right, jettisoning a foundation that state authorities identified as akin to an illegal slush fund, and the revelation that Paul Manafort continued to communicate with the White House and lie in violation of his plea deal. After more than 7,000 lies, Trump’s habitual dishonesty is now a given — and his excuses and accusations now habitually ignored by most Americans. As a result of the chaos, the legal quicksand and the lies, Trump faces a country willing to accept that their president is, as Richard Nixon put it, a crook. Let me suggest the American public is moving toward two disturbing conclusions: The president is a menace, and the president likely broke the law. What’s the implication of all that? First, his chances of reelection are sinking fast. It’s one thing to resist impeachment; it’s another to sign up for four more years of turmoil with a liar and miscreant. Republicans had better start looking for options for 2020.
 Second, the public, I’d suggest, is far more likely to accept at face value special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report findings. If they already suspect Trump ordered illegal payments or obstructed justice, Mueller’s report will likely solidify that view beyond the confines of the Trump cult (which shrinks as his performance worsens).
 Third, impeachment becomes less akin to a risky option and more like a constitutional obligation compelled by events.

Fourth, watching the turn in public opinion and the meltdown in the executive branch (especially the loss of the only trustworthy national security adviser), more senators will begin to consider seriously removing Trump from office.
 And finally, as we have previously discussed, the option of indicting him and/or his business organization becomes only a question of timing (now or after he leaves office). In sum, the ground shifted substantially over the last week or so. The cracks in his Republican wall of support are widening as actual fear grips Republican officeholders; the public becomes far more willing — anxious even — to see him go. Whether all that will result in his departure from office before 2020 is unknown, but it no longer seems like a pipe dream.

Shockingly, Nixon looks honest and completely sane and law abiding compared to Trump.