"I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T KNOW," A NERVOUS RON RON SAID BETWEEN LOUD GRUNTS. "IS IT POSSIBLE? I WAS TALKING TO MY WIFE WHILE SHE WAS DOING HER CHEST EXERCISES AND SHE SAID SOMETHING ABOUT YOU DON'T GET YOUR PERIOD AND I STARTED THINKING, 'I HAVEN'T HAD A PERIOD. COULD I BE PREGANT?' I HOPE NOT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT DONE DESTROYING FLORIDA YET AND I REALLY, REALLY WANT TO BE PRESIDENT. OH GOD! OH GOD!"
NO SOONER HAD SHE SAT DOWN THEN SHE BEGAN TO WONDER WHERE MITTENS WAS? "MITTENS?" SHE REPEATEDLY CALLED OUT. BUT THE CAT NEVER CAME OUT OF HIDING. FINALLY, AFTER LETTING A LITTLE PEE LOOSE IN HER PANTIES, SHE REALIZED HOW LOOPED SHE WAS AND GOT UP TO GO TO THE BATHROOM WHEN, TO HER HORROR, SHE LOOKED DOWN AT THE CHAIR AND SAW MITTENS.
SHE HADN'T REALIZED HE WAS ON THE CHAIR AND SHE SQUASHED MITTENS.
We're starting again with Marianne Williamson who is seeking the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.
From the discussion above, picking up from yesterday:
@Maebe_A_Girl: Also, when you were talking about this idea that gay people are trying to 'groom' children, that is very offensive.
Marianne Williamson: Yeah.
@Maebe_A_Girl: My daughter was born -- She has three gay men who are her godfathers and it never would have occurred to me in a million years that they would be anything other than fantastic godfathers to her. And they absolutely were. One has now passed and the other two are very close to her and they couldn't have been better. And they couldn't be better now as godfather figures in her life -- in her life and important. What you said is so true and I've had a lot of involvement with the gay community -- mainly because of the AIDS crisis -- I've never felt that there was a 'reaching out.' This is not a proselytizing group, it's kind of like, you do you.
Marianne Williamson: And so why don't we do something and blame somebody? Say, "Hey, let's actually look over there and let's talk about how these people are trying to infiltrate our way of life and try to attack our children." It's such an easy, easy way to get people riled up -- is when you bring children into the matter because, of course, everyone wants to protect children. LGBTQIA people want to protect children. And that's why we are so outspoken about these issues -- because we, LGBTQIA adults, were once LGBTQIA children and we remember what it was like to be ostracized, to be othered and to be made to feel that we are not worthy because our of our internal identities. And so I think the whole thing is a huge distraction and there are so many things that we could talk about. And the fact of the matter is what the GOP is saying that queer people are trying to do to kids is simply false. You know, there are studies. There are no -- LGBTQIA people in general are no more likely than cis gender -- heterosexual people -- to be pedophiles, to be sexual assaulters. But because of the fact that LGBTQIA people, a lot of it [what we are] revolves around our sexual identities and our gender identities, the GOP just easily distorts that into this idea of: "Oh, this is all about sex. Why are you teaching our kids about sex?" And the thing is, I don't want to teach your kids about sex. I don't even want to talk to your kids. I just want your kids to know that they are safe and they are loved regardless of whether they are straight, gay, cisgender or transgender, whatever. We want to create a society where everybody is welcomed and there is not this hierarchy of "Well I'm better than you because I'm straight, I'm better than you because I'm cis-gender." And that has historically been the battle that queer people have had to fight. And so it's remarkable in many ways and I think that now is the time that we really have to be outspoken about these things in order to create a better life for the kids that are growing up right now. I -- Again, I can't imagine what it's like to be a middle-schooler or a high-schooler right now, seeing that there are over half-a-thousand anti-LGBTQIA bills moving across the United States. I don't know what that would do to my self-esteem as a teenager. And it makes me really worried about -- about these kids. I've never particularly thought of myself as a young person going into politics. I got into politics out of necessity. And I started to look around and I started to realize things are changing and not necessarily for the better for particular communities and, in particular, the LGBTQIA community. And my sort of a-ha moment, if you will, was the Trump election in late 2016. When the Trump administration started in early 2017, I felt that I needed to -- I felt that I needed to use my platform as a drag performer and as a community figure to promote LGBTQIA rights and to promote our inclusion. And so I started doing a lot of parodies of folks in the Trump administration. I did a number of parodies -- you know, Betsy DeVos, Kellyanne Conway, Malania Trump. And part of the reason that I continue to do this throughout the Trump administration was because I would do these performances which -- in my mind -- they were satirical performances but they were also educational to let you know what was happening. You're being entertained but also you're learning that the administration is not necessarily -- Actually not even not necessarily but just flat out not on our side. And I felt that it was really important to draw people in. I think a lot of people are turned off by -- just by the idea of politics. It can seem really intimidating -- especially if you don't feel like you know everything about politics. But here's the thing, everybody knows what they feel inside is right or wrong.
Marianne Williamson: Right.
@Maebe_A_Girl: And this is absolutely in my mind what politics is all about. I'm here, you know, standing before you having this conversation and I'm running for Congress because I need to let everybody know that I feel this is what I think is right or wrong and if you agree with me vote for me, if you don't agree with me, vote for somebody else. But I want to live in a world where folks accept and tolerate everybody. Tolerance? I'm really starting to really dislike that word because I don't want to just be tolerated, I want to be fully integrated and celebrated, you know?
Marianne Williamson: It still implies judgement.
@Maebe_A_Girl: Like "Well, okay, alright, we'll let you in the room. We'll let you in the room but we're not going to let you have the microphone for very long." And, here's the thing, Marianne, I host drag shows every single week. I am best on the microphone. Give me the microphone because I will tell you what I have to say. And what I have to say is that we deserve -- we deserve equity and inclusion. And unfortunately, most of the parents that actually were in the room had kids in the Glendale school district and are in support of LGBTQIA inclusion. The school board is in support of LGBTQIA inclusion. And again, this is all age appropriate. You know, the way that you talk to second graders.
Marianne Williamson: In a democracy, these are considered moderate positions. What you were saying, though, I agree so much. If people -- People are living so much on the edge. People are living just to survive. 70% of Americans now report living with economic stress. So I agree with everything you just said.
And we're stopping there. Yesterday, we noted the first half of the video and the plan was to note the rest. I had some "[. . .]" in yesterday's and that wasn't me editing anyone, it was skipping. I thought it might have been the connection but I've streamed it again and it's edits. Which is fine, but it throws off the last two minutes of the video because there are jump cuts and it's harder to follow.
The full segment is now up at Marianne's YOUTUBE channel and we'll note that video.
So let's talk about what took place with that video: Marianne found her voice and found a reason to argue vote for her.
So many claims that this person (man usually -- Marianne and Republican Nikki Hayley are the only two women currently competing for a political party's presidential nomination) or that is strong.
But strength isn't being a bully which rules out all the GOP hopefuls except for Chris Christie. Strength also isn't staying silent. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is not exhibiting strength when he refuses to stand up for an attacked segment of our country.
It's a segment, yes. And some can whine, "Such a small one!" It really doesn't matter the size -- unless you're a size queen -- the issue is are you going to defend those wrongly attacked?
If you want our votes, we need to feel we can trust you, we need to feel if we were wrongly attacked, you would stand up for us. That's how you show true strength. You don't just chase a poll, you stand up and speak out for freedoms and democracy.
If you can't do that, really what can you do?
Marianne also gets that this segment issue is nonsense. We're not in the atomic age. We've moved on. But did we learn anything? The atomic age was about discovering via splitting things and breaking them up and destroying them.
I see a lot of those types speaking right now and trying to convince you to support them.
Marianne is getting at the reality that it's not the end. That is not the end. If that's the end, everything is a broken toy. The point of addressing the issues in this country is not to divide but to synthesize. And we need to be able to address issues such as transphobia, such as racism . . . The Mrs. Max Blumenthals don't get that you have to put it together, you have to pull it together to address any issue. The Mrs. Max Blumenthals think addressing the war on LGBTQ+ Americans is pulling the focus -- honestly, what focus is there in the United States? -- and detracting from other issues. No, it's not. These are interrelated issues. How we look at one another is directly related to how we look at others. When we let hate merchants divides us as Americans through othering, we set the trap for them doing the same with foreign countries.
Marianne is turning her campaign around. She's showing that she understands how complex and interrelated this all is.
That's bravery and that's inspiring.
Applause for Marianne.
Normally that's where we stop in the discussion. Not this time.
Now we're going to talk about the fake asses and how they try to deceive and pretend and all their fakery. On Twitter, this is the most streamed video that Marianne has posted to Twitter. It also has reactions. A lot. Many are positive and that's great. But we're going to focus on the negative reactions because I don't like liars and liars have been using the internet for hate campaigns and getting away with it. Let's review the 'people' leaving negative feedback to Marianne's discussion.
Serious Joint Avatar is just a transphobe and that's all we need to know there.
@ladywhateve will not support Marianne now because of this video, she insists. Liar. You were never supporting her. You support Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and have done so for weeks. It's not that hard to find out what you've been writing about online. You're a liar who left a comment trying to make it appear that you were with Marianne or on the fence but then this video! Liar, you have Robert as your background on Twitter. Lying trash. You're trying to Bud-Light Marianne.
vic proulx takes time out from his conspiracy theories to insist Marianne is wasting time with this issue. Well don't waste your time, vic, I'm sure there's some solar flare somewhere turning people into transmutants with super powers and we all so need your expertise on that. P.S. you're a Robert F. Kennedy Jr. supporter and never planned on voting for Marianne -- go away, liar.
HLY SPRT took time away from doing racist Tweets to lament that this isn't a "kitchen table issue." Clearly, judging by other Tweets, you're another Robert supporter and I hope you are joking with your fears that the government will chemically castrate White people, I hope you're not that racist and that much of a KKK freak. It may be time for the media to start reporting on the mindset of Robert's supporters.
zombywoof is a Tim Pool freak (right-winger) who is bothered that only a small percent of the population in the US is trans. And only a small portion is on death row. The most recent estimate is 2750. So I guess that means we stop working on that issue as well? Idiot.
Emma M Tenorio tells Marianne that she just lost her vote -- she's got to protect her children. Hope Emma plans to protect them from lies because, turns out, Marianne didn't lose Emma's vote, she didn't have it. Emma's another crazy for Robert and the crazies do him no good.
KanefireX, community members may remember, was a racist in the '00s and has now resurfaced on Twitter where he still is but is a racist but also now a Michael Tracey fan. He wants Marianne to know that transgender is all a Marxist ploy. Thanks for taking time away from bleaching your white sheets to share that, Kanefire X.
PoppingWeasels wants a refund on his 2020 donation. For what she did this week. Doesn't work that way but good thing you got behind RFK Jr, right? Three weeks ago, wassn't it? Not planning to vote for her but wants people to think this interview sent him reeling. Liar.
Please grasp, this is what these con artists do. They pretend they're customers of Target, for example, and are never ever going to Target again because of a Pride display. They're liars. By the way, Emma above also wants everyone to go to Target and f**k things up because of the Pride display. She loves Robert. Robert, I'm seriously worried about the sick f**ks you are attracting.
DoNotDivideUs is anti-trans as his account listed makes clear and so does the other account from which he posted another outcry Tweet about Marianne interviewing a transgender person.
Again, we focused on the crazies. They've been around for sometime. Liars online who are part of an organized attack machine. They didn't always attack. The first time the media ever encountered them was in 2008 when THE NEW YORK TIMES took forever to grasp that the "thousands" of Barack Obama supporters were actually about 150. It took the paper that long to notice it -- we noticed it right away. Several of the multiple posters had trouble keeping their identities straight and would get confused as to what they had posted under which name. (To their credit, a TIMES political reporter did e-mail to say "you were right" when they figured out what was going on.) It's astroturf and it pretends to be a movement. They're doing it online right now with the attacks on THE LITTLE MERMAID and DISNEY+ (on those attacks, please read Stan's "Erin Johnson is a racist who writes for SCREEN RANT" and "THE LITTLE MERMAID has brought in twice as much money as what?"). They're trying to create the impression of a wave that's really not there for them. It's a result of saps like Dana Milbank who saw the 2004 election as his own world of popularity and didn't grasp that he was on a mailing list that was being worked. How dumb do you have to be?
In Norristown, Kennedy condemned the “toxic polarization that is really destroying our country.” Like his father in the 1960s, he lauds a similar crusade, but is instead campaigning on his belief that leaders in the Democratic Party today amplify division and push lies.
The junior Kennedy has his family's name but lacks his ancestors' popularity and is perceived differently in the public eye −in part for pushing anti-vaccine views that are at odds with what government agencies and prominent public health experts say. More diseases, like measles, can occur in communities with pockets of unvaccinated people, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
I've seen you buddy up to Tucker Carlson, Glenneth Greenwald and Matt Taibbi -- transphobes one and all. Your niece telling me you're not a transphobe and that you do not hate LGBTQ+ people isn't enough. You need to find your voice. You've been more than willing to meet with any crazy in the world. It's time for you to find the voice to defend the most targeted in the community. You're the one invoking your father -- and you should -- but he wouldn't be silent when a minority population was targeted.
Some of that, I would say, involves some private conversations. I think if you appear on some public platforms with them, you offer them critiques -- and again I think you're capacity to do this is greater than folks like ours because of who you are. But you can engage people in what you were term "loving critiques" on public platforms so that folks can be clear about what your position is as you try to show people and win people over to new positions without necessarily having a huge fight that's good for television but doesn't move people over to certain political positions. [. . .] But if you go to an event that's an event to boost them and you only praise them then of course they're your friend but again I think it diminishes your stature and who you are because it looks like to the rest of us who are seeing it that you're not offering critical love as you stated earlier about some of the organizations and people that you care for but instead it feels as if you're endorsing their platforms and who they are and their ideals
That's Kamau Franklin offering some wise words to Cornel West (we'll include the video in a moment) that equally apply to Robert.
Marianne's running a real campaign. At present, Robert's not. That is reality. And. Robert, if your scared that all the crazies will fall away if you defend those in need of defending? You really aren't your father's son.
I don't know what to say about the disgusting Supreme
Court. I really don't. Let me start with a column. Before I do,
disclosing, I have met Eugene R. Fidell -- C.I. knows him and I met him
through her. Don't want to be a Jonathan Turley who fails to do
disclosures, after all. This is from Fidell's column for THE HILL:
As the Supreme Court term draws to a close, attention is understandably focused on the big-ticket cases. Lost in the shuffle is Jones v. Hendrix,
a habeas corpus case brought by a federal prisoner who was convicted 23
years ago, and who still has several more years to serve on his
327-month sentence, for being a felon in possession of a firearm and
making false statements to acquire a firearm. Americans who pay
attention to the Supreme Court need to be aware of this decision because
it offers a disturbing perspective on the Court as currently
constituted.
Lots
of people who find themselves charged with criminal offenses claim they
are innocent. Mostly, they mean they didn’t “do it.” They may claim
it’s all a case of mistaken identity, or they may claim an alibi (i.e.,
they were somewhere else at the time). But sometimes — and it’s rare —
the claim is that, whether or not they “did” what they are said to have
done, it wasn’t a crime.
This
kind of claim rests on the notion that the criminal statute, properly
interpreted, simply doesn’t cover the defendant’s conduct. This is
called “statutory innocence” or “legal innocence.” A person cannot be
convicted based on conduct that is not criminal under some statute. But
what if the correct interpretation of the statute is not handed down
until after, maybe long after, the person is convicted and regular
appellate review has been completed?
Enter
Marcus DeAngelo Jones. At the time of his conviction, the case law in
the Eighth Circuit did not require the prosecution to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt, as an “element” of the offense of being a “felon in
possession,” that the defendant knew that he was disqualified from
owning a firearm. In 2019, after Mr. Jones’s appeal was over, however,
the Supreme Court ruled in Rehaif v. United States that
the prosecution did indeed have to prove the defendant’s knowledge of
his own disqualification. That decision is binding and has retroactive
effect. As a result, far from having been properly convicted, Mr. Jones
suddenly had a valid claim of statutory innocence.
And
so Mr. Jones sought a writ of habeas corpus. An easy case, one might
think. Not so, according to six members of the Supreme Court.
The
conservative cabal -- the one Turley advises -- decided that it does
not matter one bit if someone is legally innocent. Can you believe
that? Is there anything more important in the world of justice than
determining whether or not someone is innocent or guilty?
That's awful. It continues. AP notes, "The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down affirmative action in
college admissions, declaring race cannot be a factor and forcing
institutions of higher education to look for new ways to achieve diverse
student bodies."
The Court is corrupt. We need term limits. We need impeachment -- impeachment especially on Clarence Thomas.
Clarence
is feeling frisky -- warning to all women who work in his office -- and
he's part of the cabal that just overturned affirmative actions. As
President Joe Biden said after the verdict today, "This is not a normal
Court" and he is 100% right.
Harvard
University was defiant after the Supreme Court effectively banned
universities from using race as a factor in admissions, arguing the role
of diversity and difference in education is essential to academic
excellence.
In
a letter signed by leaders from across the institution, including
outgoing president Lawrence Bacow, the university said it would comply
with the court’s ruling, but it would force change in how it ensures a
commitment to diversity.
“We
write today to reaffirm the fundamental principle that deep and
transformative teaching, learning, and research depend upon a community
comprising people of many backgrounds, perspectives, and lived
experiences,” it said in the communication.
The
Court is destroying the country. It is a corrupt and unaccountable
Court. As Joy Behar asked on THE VIEW today, "What's next?" Overturning
gay marriage?
Rep.
Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) referred to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas
as “Justice ‘Harlan Crow’ Thomas” on Thursday, as he called for the
expansion of the court in the wake of its decision restricting the use
of affirmative action in college admissions.
Thomas has faced public scrutiny in recent months over his close relationship with Crow, a Republican megadonor.
“Justice
‘Harlan Crow’ Thomas and five other MAGAs have just slammed the college
doors on Black and Brown folks after declaring that we now live in a
color-blind country,” Johnson said in a statement.
Crow
funded several luxury vacations for the Supreme Court justice, paid for
his great-nephew’s private school tuition and purchased properties
owned by Thomas and his family, according to reporting by ProPublica.
Jackson's
own 29-page dissent is dedicated to explaining the "universal benefits
of considering race" in higher education, arguing that such
considerations are important due to the "intergenerational transmission
of inequality" that originated with slavery and continued through
subsequent government policies in the decades since then.
"Given
our history, the origin of persistent race-linked gaps should be no
mystery," Jackson wrote. "History speaks. In some form, it can be heard
forever. The race-based gaps that first developed centuries ago are
echoes from the past that still exist today. By all accounts, they are
still stark."
She
also defended the admissions process at the University of North
Carolina, noting that applicants' disclosure of their race on admissions
forms is involuntary while lauding the institution for embracing "its
constitutional obligation to afford genuine equal protection to
applicants."
And in a footnote to her dissent, Jackson responded to Thomas' lengthy arguments against her own opinion.
She
accused Thomas of demonstrating in his opinion an "obsession with race
consciousness that far outstrips my or UNC's holistic understanding that
race can be a factor that affects applicants' unique life experiences."
"Justice
Thomas ignites too many more straw men to list, or fully extinguish,
here," Jackson wrote. "The takeaway is that those who demand that no one
think about race (a classic pink-elephant paradox) refuse to see, much
less solve for, the elephant in the room— the race-linked disparities
that continue to impede achievement of our great Nation's full
potential."
She
concluded by arguing that proponents of colorblindness "prevent our
problem-solving institutions from directly addressing the real import
and impact" of racism and are "deterring our collective progression
toward becoming a society where race no longer matters."
Thursday, June 29, 2023. We look at the 2024 presidential circus.
Marianne
Williamson is running for the Democratic Party's presidential
nomination. She spoke yesterday with Maebeagirl who is running for
Congress. US House Rep Adam Schiff is leaving his seat to seek the
nomination for US senator out of California. Maebe came in second to
him in the race last time and she is running again. Marianne Williamson
spoke with her yesterday.
Marianne
Williamson: Tell me how you see clearly -- we've got a targeted group
in the United States, right? I mean, one of the things I've talked
about is, if elected president, I will confer a special protection
status onto the transgender community. You are transgender yourself.
Tell me how you see the situation and what we need to do.
@Maebe_A_Girl: Absolutely.
So, first of all, thank you for having this chat with me. I think it's
so important -- especially considering that you're running for [sic]
president of the United States. I think that people need to hear about
your stances on these things and hear that you're having conversations
with real trans people about this because historically -- or at least in
the last five to ten years -- trans people have been left out of the
conversation about trans legislation which is so twisted in my mind. As
a good friend of mine always says, "If you are not at the table, then
you are on the menu." And trans people -- queer people in general -- are
very much on the menu right now. And we do not have nearly enough
representation for people like me in governments all across the United
States. So, for me, it's interesting because I've been running since
2019. The first election that I ran for was 2020 for the US House and,
you know, during that time we were seeing a lot of anti-LGBTQIA
sentiments and rhetoric. And, you know, I think with the election of --
going back to a Democratic president back in 2020, I think a lot of
people thought that would ease up in a bit. But unfortunately, it's
gotten worse. This has been an upward trend since about the mid-2010s.
Pretty much since Trump was elected to office and it keeps getting
worse because every year I find myself saying, "This has been the worst
year in history for anti-LGBTQIA." 2023 totally surpassses 2022 which
totally surpassed 2021, etc. There's over half-a-thousand anti-LGBTQIA
bills moving across the US -- everywhere from state legislatures to also
the federal legislature. We're seeing far right representatives like
Marjorie Taylor Greene introducing legislation at the federal level
which would severely restrict the rights -- and in recognition of queer
people, you know, these are anti-LGBTQIA bills in general but, more
specifically, most of them are anti-trans bills. There's been a number
of anti-drag bills that have been introduced. What many people probably
don't recognize is that anti-drag bills are also anti-trans bills.
When you introduce a bill that requires you to dress according to your
gender assigned at birth, that is not only going to effect drag
performers but it's directly going to effect trans people. And as the
famous drag queen and trans person from RUPAL'S DRAG RACE, Monica
Beverly Hills, always says, "Drag is what you do but trans is who you
are." So we are attacking not only people's occupations but we are
attacking people's identities. And I think we have often think [. .
.]. You don't even have to be gay or queer to do drag. Anybody can do
drag. In fact, a number of trans people do drag. Me, myself, I
discovered my trans identity when I started doing drag. Drag is
oftentimes a sort of safe way to experiment safely with your gender
identity in a way that doesn't feel so permanent. And, for me, I
discovered that I was a trans person early on because I started to
realize while everybody else was taking off the makeup and the hair and
the costumes after a gig, I wanted to keep it all on because it felt --
it made me feel more like myself.
Marianne Williamson: Right.
@Maebe_A_Girl: And that's a realization that a lot of folks have.
Marianne
Williamson: Okay, I have several questions I want to ask. You were
talking about Marjorie Taylor Greene and anti-trans bills. I wanted to
ask abou tthe anti-trans bills, I wanted to ask about the anti-drag
bills and I also want to ask more about you -- your journey to this
point. You just mentioned your journey -- how much being in drag shows
had to do with it but I think all of us are more interested in what the
personal story is there?
@Maebe_A_Girl: You
should say that it is okay to be you as you are. We will love you and
we welcome you to be you as you are. We're not saying, "Come to our
side, come join us and be queer and trans." That's not the case. In
fact, it couldn't even work like that. You know, I grew up in the late
90s, early 2000s. I graduated high school in 2004. And I remember what
it was like to be a young queer person without any sort of queer
representation in the media aside from WILL & GRACE and QUEER AS
FOlK. And I remember how othered I felt and how different I felt and
how afraid I felt to come out as a queer person at that time because of
the fact that it felt so othered. I can't even imagine what it is like
in 2023 for somebody who is in middle school or high school who is
coming into their queer gay trans identity and looking around and not
just seeing that there are some people that support but there are so
many people that don't and the fact that there is legislation to try to
erase us and to try to stop us from existing. When laws attempt to
restrict gender affirming healthcare, they're trying to restrict the
existence of trans people. And this is not just a legislative issue but
it's also a social issue because when laws -- when bills are being
introduced and when they're passed into laws particularly in states like
Tennessee, Florida, Texas, it also gives a pass to people to then
continue othering LGBTQIA people. So it's not just a legislative thing,
but it's a social thing. And when people don't feel safe going out at
their true authentic selves, is that freedom? No, it's not.
Marianne
Williamson: You know, I was contacted a few months ago about a bill
that was about to take place -- anti-drag show bill in Tennessee and I
was asked to attend a protest the night before the bill was meant to go
into effect at East Tennessee University and I went and it was very
inspiring. And there was so much protest and there was so much energy
around it and ultimately a judge did strike down the law which was, of
course, a very, very good thing.
That's
a little over half the posted video. We'll open with the second half
tomorrow. We're not treating this as a one day thing. LGBTQ+ people
are being targeted and have been for months now.
You
have hate merchants expanding the targeting because it just starts with
LGBTQ+, then it moves outward. They are the American Taliban. In
Texas, for example, the GOP has moved towards definiing what a woman can
wear and what a man can wear. This has nothing to do with lesbians or
gays or transgendered people. This is about their hate and their need
to control. I can not believe that Greg Abbott's regime thinks it can
impose clothing choices on adults and get away with it but I also can't
believe how mild the reaction nationally has been to this.
The
GOP isn't afraid to trash LGBTQ+ people. In fact, outside of Chris
Christie, they're all doing it as they run for the Republican Party's
presidential nomination.
Elsewhere?
I
see Joe Biden stepping up. I see Joe Biden ready for this fight. I've
waited and waited to see others. Like Marianne, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
also wants the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. He and
Marianne have both argued that the party needs a televised debate on
this nomination. Why?
Until today, I haven't seen a need. Marianne's demonstrated a need.
Mrs.
Max Blumenthal is a hateful piece of trash and she's stupid. She
thinks the issues above don't matter when they go to exactly who we are
and what we do.
Don't kid yourself that we can
other at home and not other overseas. Don't kid yourself that this
othering isn't what forsters war. You've got get your own house clean
to tackle other things.
Respect starts at home.
Marianne's ready for the discussion. Love Robert, but he's yet to show anything to demonstrate that he is.
And
let's rope in Cornel West who is not a presidential candidate. He is
running for the Green Party's presidential nomination and he may get it,
he may not. But I don't want his garbage of 'brother and sister'
nonsense where he preaches at length but never says a damn word worth
anything.
Marianne demonstrated she can have
the needed conversations to get this nation back on track. If Robert
and Cornel think they're up to it, it's their move now.
Noted transphobe Jonathan Turley Tweeted a confession yesterday:
The Hill is out with my column on the Court's ruling in Moore v. Harper and "the coup" that never was......Liberal
law professors and pundits have filled the media with dire predictions
that the Supreme Court was about to carry out a long-planned “coup” and
“power grab”--one even wrote that the court could be on the brink of
establishing “one-party rule” in the United States.
The
bigot of George Washington University must feel very comfortable at FOX
"NEWS" is he's publicly copping to what we already told you: He's not
of the left or liberal. You caught it, right, he Tweeted "Liberal law
professors and pundits" -- he pointed the finger at them . . . from
beneath his rock. Everyone let Lawrence Tribe know. He called it long
ago. Thanks for finally confession, Swirley, but, no, thanks for lying
in your Tweet. His analysis is wrong and he knows it. I can't speak
until the Court decides on the bigot lawsuit out of Colorado -- one
Turley was an 'unofficial' advisor on -- disclosure, Turley, try
practicing it -- but after that decision is reached, I'll explain why
things are actually worse. Don't let Turley's lies lull you into a
false sense of security.
Let's
wade back into the race for presidential nominations in various political
parties. The Greens do not have a nominee yet. Cornel West wants to be
that person and, thanks to Bri-Bri's misleading 'reporting,' some don't
grasp that. Check out Betty's site where she noted replies to Bri's
pimping of Cornel and the explosion that followed her trying to play the
race card. (Betty is correct, I have long said Bri's not authentic to
African-Americans because she came up the White side of the media.
She's not a crossover artist because she can't crossover. MOTOWN
artists, in the 60s, for example crossed over -- having success on the
soul charts and -- this is the crossover -- on the pop charts. Bri
can't get near the soul charts. She's basically this decade's Pat Boone
with all that entails.
Emily Jacobs (WASHINGTON EXAMINER) reports that
Donnie says Ronnie's immigration plan (to persecute immigrants) isn't
that impressive and just copies his own. In addition to squabbling over
who has the bigger one, the two are also fighting over a boy, Pedro
Gonzalez. Donald had him first. But now he's Ron's steady. And, now
that he's no longer in the safety of Big Don's arms, poor Pedro, group
chats have emerged revealing what a disgusting and and racist twerp
Pedro is. But who leaked them? Who would have leaked them? Who? Tracy Connor (DAILY BEAST) notes the Little Ronnie's camp is pointing the finger at . . . Donald:
DeSantis
has not publicly commented on the story about Gonzalez’s messages, but
Breitbart noted that the Never Back Down PAC, which backs DeSantis,
called the messages “inexcusable.” Meanwhile, DeSantis’ campaign
mouthpiece, Christina Pushaw, liked a tweet about how “nasty” the Trump-DeSantis feud has become.
“And
to be clear I’m mostly talking about the Trump side,” the tweet read.
“I’ve seen some comments from people on the DeSantis side I don’t care
for too, but it’s consistently the Trump surrogates who seem to have no
bottom to how low they’ll sink to support their candidate.”
Chronicles
also had not commented publicly on the Breitbart revelations, but it’s
worth noting that when Gonzalez was accused last year of
antisemitism—after he made crude comments about the “physiognomy” of two
prominent Jews—magazine executive editor Edward Welsch wrote a defense of him titled, “That Old Anti-Semitism Smear.”
On
Tuesday, Gonzalez tweeted that he was grateful for the support he was
getting, including from some Trump supporters. One backer of the
ex-president, however, was not in that category: Donald Trump Jr.
retweeted the Breitbart story three times Tuesday night.
Of all of them, Donald
Trump will always stand the best chance of being declared criminally
insane. That's why his never-ending list of complaints and whines
include that FOX "NEWS" is out to destroy him, "The
coloring, distortions, everything are just so bad. They must sit and
look at 100 different shots, and then take the 10 absolute worst."
He's accusing FOX "NEWS" of deliberately selecting and using the worst
photographs of him. The big surprise there is that, after all this
time, Donald believes that good photographs of him exist. He has looked
in the mirror, right?
Meanwhile Oliver O'Connell (INDEPENDENT) notes
that Paul Ryan (who at least takes an attractive photo) has declared
nominating Donald for president again to be "a disaster" and that
"anyone not named Trump" would be better. Do voters agree?
The public holds a less favorable view of Donald Trump's actions following his recent legal battles, according to one poll.
A survey of 1,500 voters, conducted by Redfield & Wilton Strategies exclusively for Newsweek on
June 25, found that fewer people now believe the legal issues facing
the former president are "politically motivated," compared to a poll
from April taken weeks after Trump pleaded not guilty to 37 felony
charges as part of the falsifying business records investigation in New
York.
When
those responding to the survey asked which statement they agreed with
more, 47 percent said that the legal issues Trump is facing are
"primarily the result of his own actions which appear to have been
illegal"—a 13-point increase from the April survey (34 percent).
In
the June poll, a further 38 percent believe the investigations are the
result of "politically motivated attacks" by Trump's opponents, down 19
points from the April results (57 percent).
Jared Glans (THE HILL) cites a "poll from National Public Affairs released Wednesday [which]
showed Trump with 41 percent support among likely GOP primary voters in
the state, up from 39 percent last month. DeSantis came in second with
18 percent, a 5-point drop from the 23 percent he had last month. Former
South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (R) came in third with 12 percent,
followed by South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott (R) with 10 percent. All other
candidates included in the poll had support in the single digits." DeSantis dropped 5 percentage points in the poll?"
If
you missed it, the tiny tot is said to be less than five feet and seven
inches and possibly is actually so short that he was refused admittance
on the It's A Small World After All ride, hence his war on DISNEY.
Having destroyed Florida's economy with his corruption and incompetence,
Little Ronnie needed something to distract Florida voters -- especially
from the huge bills for his never-ending lawsuits. So he declared war
on DISNEY.
He has since
used that war on the campaign trail trying to portray himself as big and
tall -- or taller than his shrimpy height -- but now . . . a twist.
Attorneys
for The Walt Disney Co. and Ron DeSantis are proposing very different
timelines for the start of a federal trial over the company’s claim of
retaliation by the Florida governor.
Disney
proposed a timeline with a trial to start on July 15 of next year.
DeSantis’ attorneys, along with those of other defendants in the case,
want it put off to Aug. 4, 2025, after next year’s presidential
election, according to a court filing. DeSantis launched his White House
bid last month.
No, no, no, no.
Ronnie's used his battle with DISNEY to prove he's fit for the
presidency. Wouldn't be fair to voters for them to have to wait for the
outcome. Ronnie's made it his own performative measure. America
deserves to know what the court will find. He's wasted millions of tax
payer dollars on this fiasco. Is he right, is he wrong? He's running
for president now. He's no longer just defrauding Florida's population
and leaving them deeply in debt while harming their tourist economy.
He's trying to be in charge of all the states. So, sorry, he shouldn't
be allowed to delay the hearing. It needs to happen before the
presidential election so the American people can see what they might be
in store for and vote accordingly. Of course, he could always drop out
of the race if he wants. Then he can argue to push the hearing back.
But having flitted back and forth across the country, singing his own
praises while touting his fight with DISNEY, he's made this a criteria
for judging whether or not he would be an effective US president.
Should we note polling? AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research finds
Joe's approval rating to be 41% The poll has a margin of error of +/-
3.9. Most interesting finding in the poll? It's about Vice President
Kamala Harris. Favorables are 37% while 50% have a negative opinion.
That seems bad. It may be. But she's gotten nothing but negative
publicity -- whether it's warranted or not can be discussed by others.
The interesting factor is that 12% "don't know enough about her to
say." She's in her third year as vice president and some are still
withholding judgment. That's rather interesting. If she managed to
enthrall all of the undecided she's be basically split down the middle
in terms of positive approval and negative approval.
THE NEW YORK TIMES has a very poorly fact checked piece on Robert. If you want to read it, click here to read is on MSN
and not at THE TIMES. I have neither the time nor the desire to repeat
myself. We covered NYT and all their errors and lies -- Yes, it is a
lie to credit someone in your piece with a title that they do not have,
the title on the masthead is the title they hold, you can't explain that
away. But the writer was a friend of the person he interviewed -- not
disclosed in the article -- so his friend got whatever he wanted -- even
a made up title. It's these basic lies -- not errors, these are lies,
I've confronted them offline, they know it's a lie and they think it's
funny and giggle -- that destroy the paper's reputation time and again.
It's refusing to accurately report on Janet Jackson when you decide to
wade in. If you're going to cover her, you better get her number of
number one hits right, for example. But you just lie and we're all
supposed to be okay with that. It's the lying, not just the errors.
It's the scope. Coretta Scott King passes away -- a historical figure,
an activist, someone most of us looked up to and admired. And? Gail
Collins is writing unsigned editorials about her friend -- minor
playwright Wendy -- passing away and featuring one column after another
about Wendy. How many columns and editorials did Coretta get?
Zero.
Gail
didn't figure Coretta warranted attention. And I'm at the end of my
ropes on tip-toeing around this topic. If wehadn't shamed Bob Herbert,
he never would have (briefly) noted her in a column many weeks after she
died.
So not a fan of
the paper, fully aware of it's racism, of it's new anti-trans spin,
aware of so much. But I don't do greatest hits. This isn't a jukebox
musical.
We'll note this and see if you can catch what a huge error it is:
“The
New York Times, which is in this room today,” he said, as an audience
member pointed down at the Times reporter’s seat, prompting a chorus of
boos so angry, Mr. Kennedy’s campaign manager — the former Democratic
presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich — told the audience member to
stop it.
Dennis Kucinich was the Democratic presidential candidate?
Wow. I must have dropped acid that whole year because I'm pulling a blank on that.
Oh,
wait, it's not an issue of acid, it's an issue of the paper getting it
wrong again. Dennis tried to get the Democratic Party's presidential
nomination -- in 2004 and 2008. He didn't. John Kerry and Barack Obama
were the Democratic presidential candidates in those two presidential
election years.
Again, NYT
offers an error, a lie or just racism/transphobia or some other hatred
for others that they try to dress up in a guise of sophistication.
Forty-four
percent of registered voters say they are willing to consider
supporting a third-party or independent presidential candidate if
President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump are the two major
party nominees in 2024 — and the group includes more Democrats than
Republicans, according to new NBC News polling.
You
think Donald ran with conspiracy nut job nonsense when he refused to
acknowledge he was beaten fair and square in the 2020 election?
Meet
Dario Hunter, Jill Stein, Ajamu Baraka and other nut jobs who insisted
that Dario was robbed! Robbed! Lazy ass couldn't even Tweet once a
week but there was a conspiracy, he insisted, and they conspired to
steal the nomination from him.
Who did?
Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers!
Having spread lies about Margaret, Jill Stein has a lot of nerve trying to invoke Margaret to sell Cornel to actual Greens.
Dario
and that denial gang went all over the place and they'd hint in
interview after interview that it was Kevin and Margaret. Then Dario went on air with Cindy Sheehan -- a nice person but a lousy interviewer
and not real strong when it comes to facts. They went to conspiracy con
and back again. And that was the last straw for me which is why we called them out.
Kevin
and I were not friends and I never met him. He read Kat's site and I believe they
exchanged e-mails. My only e-mails from him were to tell me I was too
negative to the Green Party (Ava and I long ago dubbed them ineffective
because they're too busy trying to be the kid sister to the Democratic
Party instead of an actual political party). And that was fine, it
didn't bother me one way or another.
But
after I called out the nonsense Jill and company were pulling, the lies
they were spreading, I got a very kind e-mail from Kevin thanking me
for defending his wife. Kevin's no longer around to defend his wife. I
will defend her on this until the end of time. Jill Stein is a nut
job. She was a lousy presidential candidate -- see Ava and my ""Let the fun begin (Ava and C.I.) -- and
I'm not about to let a lot of liars come along and rewrite history.
Cornel
doesn't believe in democracy -- as his taking a presidential nomination
from The People's Party without (a) being a member or (b) actually
campaigning for the post. And he's not very smart because he was so
eager to get the nomination Chris was negotiating that he never did the
actual work required to find who The People's Party was.
They
do grasp that, right, these idiots whoring for Cornel, that any sane
person is asking how Cornel could be with one political party for nearly
a week and then dump them while claiming he was qualified to be
president? People who are qualified to be president don't end up with a
political 'party' that is racist and has one sexual harassment claim
after another against it.
BLACK
POWER MEDIA interviewed Cornel yesterday. You can check that out at
their YOUTUBE channel. If I stream it, we'll note it tomorrow.
We will wind down with this press release:
For Immediate Release
---------------------
DATE: June 27, 2023
CONTACT: Committee for Marshall – Not the Megasite