A transgender teacher at a Los Angeles elementary school recently discovered his Pride flag had been vandalized and burnt.
The
incident occurred earlier this year in the lead-up to Pride Month and
amidst tensions between conservative parents and the school district.
Pride Month is celebrated every year in June and is a chance for LGBTQ+
people to celebrate their history, culture, and rights.
That's disgusting. And that's why I'm now about to rant regarding both little boys who host The Vanguard on YouTube.
Marianne Williamson is their political crush. Fine.
Not
fine? Whoring. Marianne went on Bill Mahr's digital program and they
thought she was so smart not to take the bait from him at the start of
the interview. The bait? He immediately began slamming transgender
people.
No, she did not look smart. She looked sad and pathetic.
It
gets worse. The one with the long hair then went on to say that by not
taking the bait she was able to instead talk about the 'important
issues.'
I feel like David
Letterman watching Kate & Allie. He could never tell which was Kate
and which one was Allie -- even when having both actresses (Susan St.
James and Jane Curtin) on his talk show regularly. I can't tell Zac
from Gavin.
Trans issues are important issues. It was distressing to hear them say otherwise.
We
need to talk about trans issues. We need to defend trans people when
they are under attack as they are at present. We need to support one
another. And the more we talk about these issues the more we understand
one another.
I wasn't a
trans ally. I never thought about it one way or the other. I'm serious
here. And think back to when GLAAD and others, near the end of
President Obama's second term, started talking about the attacks on
trans people in things like yearly reports. I was aghast here that the
focus was repeatedly on trans persons and not on lesbians. I felt
personally slighted. I'm not joking. And it showed in my writing. I
had to see several months worth of trans women (usually
African-American) getting attacked. And I had to read C.I.'s stuff
because she was covering these issues. Jealousy and I'm sure there was
transphobia on my part.
I had to open my eyes.
And
I did and I've grown and I'm glad about that. But at my worst, I can't
imagine saying that trans issues weren't important issues.
It gets worse.
Remember in 2001 when Ralph Nader ran for president?
No?
Why not?
Because it didn't happen, short hair!
How
can you host a political show and not know that the presidential
election is every four years so it always ends in an even number? In
2000, there was a presidential election. Candidates included Bully Boy
Bush, Al Gore and Ralph Nader.
Then
they wanted to talk Bill Mahr. He used to be so great. They wanted to
tell us. But then, for awhile, he was on anti-Muslim (they may have
said anti-Arab, I don't plan to listen again).
Hmm.
He's
always been a disgusting sexist but that's apparently not an issue.
It's one to me. As is his long pattern of anti-Muslim and anti-Arab
prejudice.
Bill Mahr is a
Libertarian. He may support Democrats from time to time, but, little
boys, I remember the 90s. I remember when he was on Comedy Central. I
remember when he transferred to ABC. I remember when he got in his
uproar there. He and some conservative nut were discussing 9/11 and
saying the hijackers weren't "cowards." A lot of people were outraged.
I was outraged. Yes, they were cowards. When you use violence for political means, you're a coward. That's the first thing.
Second, what did the passengers on those hijacked planes have to do with anything?
When you target innocents -- because it's easier for you to get to them -- you are a coward.
He's disgusting and he's always been disgusting.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Tuesday, August 15, 2023. The deceivers are all around -- the prime
minister in Iraq, the failed 'feminist' Naomi Wolf, Robert F. Kennedy
Jr., Ron DeSantis . . .
Starting with Iraq, ASHARQ AL-ASWAT reports:
Iraq no longer required the presence of "foreign combat forces" on its
territories to combat ISIS, announced Prime Minister and
Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces Mohammed Shia al-Sudani on
Monday.
Sudani was speaking during a meeting with commanders of the Armed
Forces and Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), members of the Ministries
of Interior and Defense, and the military forces that took part in the
war against the ISIS terrorist organization.
PRESS TV quotes him saying:
"Today, Iraq does not need foreign combat
forces, and we are conducting advanced dialogues in order to determine
the form of future relationship and cooperation with the international
coalition," he said.
“The Iraqis have become, after the
liberation battles, more united than ever before… All Iraqis fought in
one trench from all nationalities, religions, sects and components."
What a load of garbage. His remarks, the prime minister himself.
Do
they need foreign troops? No, they don't. But he's not calling for
them to leave. And it was just last week that Iraq's Minister of
Defense Thabit Muhammad al-Abassi was in DC meeting with US Secretary of
Defense Lloyd Austin to discuss the new agreement as the DoD press
release noted:
This meeting looks beyond the defeat of the Islamic State and is an
outgrowth of a visit Austin made to Baghdad in March. "We are interested
in an enduring defense relationship within a strategic partnership,"
said Dana Stroul, deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle
East, during an interview last week.
Many officials are calling this an agreement on establishing a
"360-degree relationship" -- meaning it would be a whole-of-government
strategic partnership for years.
For years.
Years.
Foreign troops not needed but US troops to continue "for years."
Iraq's prime minister was lying to the Iraqi people.
And,
as an aside, he did slip in that the Iraqi troops need training. Ah,
'training.' That's been an excuse forever and a day to keep US troops
on the ground in Iraq, hasn't it? They've been trained and re-trained
and re-trained again.
He made a big speech and it was meaningless.
Considering
how rapidly the right's "war on woke" is expanding, it was perhaps
inevitable: Self-identified "mama bears" on a Texas school board are
angry that a classroom had a poster showing people of different races
holding hands. Last week, the school board in Conroe, Texas, a small
city north of Houston, turned the right-wing mania for censorship into a
dark parody of itself. At issue? A poster that seemed to imply that
interracial friendship is possible. According to ABC 13 Eyewitness News in
Houston, things started when school trustee Melissa Dungan declared
that she had spoken to parents who were upset about "displays of
personal ideologies in classrooms." When pressed for an example,
according to the news report, "Dungan referred to a first grade student
whose parent claimed they were so upset by a poster showing hands of
people of different races, that they transferred classrooms."
"I wish I was shocked," Dungan said of the poster. "I am aware these trends have been happening for many years."
Some
other members of the school board did, in fact, argue that there was
nothing objectionable about such a poster. But Dungan was backed up by
another trustee, Misty Odenweller, who insisted that the depiction of
uh, race-mixing was in some way a "violation of the law." The two women
are part of "Mama Bears Rising," a secretive far-right group fueling the
book-banning mania in Conroe and the surrounding area. At least 59 books have been banned due to their efforts.
When
another trustee asked Dungan if she personally objected to an
illustration of cross-racial friendship, she demurred, simply declaring
that she was just trying to avoid "situations like that." Situations
like what, exactly? She didn't say. Dungan's behavior is a perfect
illustration of the "anti-woke" tap dance. The person alleging nefarious
wokeness never admits to their own bigotry, instead pretending that
they're reacting to "woke" people who are "pushing" an agenda, in this
case through innocuous poster art. Of course, the entire premise of the
argument is rooted in bigotry, as this example shows. It presumes that
the feelings of real or imagined bigots who might take umbrage at such
an image are of paramount importance, and that everyone else's freedoms
must be curtailed to appease them.
This
is our fault, as a society. Yes, a backlash is the natural response to
progress. But this backlash was egged on by silence and by deliberate
silence in the case of some. The reason that they have gotten as far as
they have is because mainstream has tried to both-side it (and, in the
case of THE NEW YORK TIMES, tried to one-side it). That enlarged the
opening. And then you had 'trusted voices' who you shouldn't trust.
Naomi Wolf, we'll get to that nut case in a moment. But I'm talking
about the so-called leftists like Katie Halper and Aaron Mate and Max
Blumenthal and his disgusting wife. The people who'd rather do
political 'actions' with Nazis and racists and homophobes and
transphobes. They're grifters and they can't call out their marks so
they stay silent.
If they'd stood up months ago, we'd have lost far less ground.
Standing up?
It is outrageous that a poster of children of different races holding hands is seen as something to ban.
See?
It's that easy and it's that clear. But whether it was racists or
homophobes attacking, the grifters didn't stand up because they were too
busy whoring.
Now the work we have to do on the left is that much harder.
Discrimination is not socially acceptable but when we are silent, we give the give the impression that it is.
As a result, we've made several steps backwards as a society.
These hate merchants need to be called out.
They're
so emboldened that they're now going after integration. Grasp that.
Grasp how hateful they are and how far back that they want to carry this
country.
Hate
merchants don't just hate one group. Their hatred is interrelated --
something Laura Nyro was getting at with "Lite A Flame (The Animal
Rights Song):"
It's like prejudice
For the color of your skin
Prejudice for a woman
Prejudice for an animal
Like the elephant of the plain
But
the grifters who claim that they are on the left insisted that these
issues were "identity politics" -- the usual dismissal of any rights that go
beyond those granted to White men.
We
should have all been calling this out. Those who refused -- and
continue to refuse -- make it harder for our society. But Aaron and
Katie would, after all, rather be silent and line their own
pockets. In a just world, they'd pay -- hugely -- for enabling the hate
merchants with their silence.
And
then there are the even worse. Naomi Wolf knows better. In fact, she
was trying to make money not that long ago raising awareness of the
historical attacks on gay people in the United Kingdom. But she didn't
know what she was writing and the book got pulped because she's that
damn stupid. She immediately begins hanging out with Moms For Bigotry
-- which demonstrates just how little she actually cared about gay men
or anyone in the LGBTQ+ community.
Back to Amanada for Moms For Bigotry:
Because
of their tight link to the book-banning efforts, the relatively new but
suspiciously wealthy group Moms for Liberty has received massive media
attention in the past couple of years. Even so, the group's radical
ideology has not really been covered in most mainstream news coverage,
which tends to portray the Moms as a bunch of overzealous church ladies.
As Flux editor Matthew Sheffield, Media Matters vice president Julie
Millican and researcher Olivia Little explained in a recent "Theory of Change" podcast, however, underneath the facade of "Christian moms" is some startling far-right radicalism.
For
instance, while it was widely reported that a Moms for Liberty pamphlet
from one branch was caught quoting Adolf Hitler, the group was able to
spin that as a misunderstanding and a mistake. But at their summit a few
days later, speaker Tiffany Justice yelled, "I stand with that mom" —
the one who quoted Hitler — while the audience whooped its approval.
That's
who Naomi ran too. Immunizations and masks were just too much for the
ugly woman with the fraying hair -- can she not even afford a home hot
oil treatment? -- and sent her running into the arms of the homophobic
and the transphobic. She really is pathetic.
She
thinks she's taking brave stands -- against chemtrails!!!! -- she's a
nut case. And when she was needed, she was more interested in standing
with and covering for Moms For Bigotry -- including insisting that, "as
a Jewish woman," she wasn't bothered at all by the quoting of Hitler.
This
needs to be documented, it needs to be remembered. She has betrayed
feminism. Part of the 'left' may be willing to forgive her when she tries to come crawling back. Those of
us who are part of the feminist left should never forgive her. She has
done real damage, she has betrayed feminism. This isn't minor. She's
this century's Warren Ferrell and should suffer accordingly. Like
Warren, she's aggrieved and convinced she's the victim. Typical of
narcissists, they always put their aspirations ahead of people truly in
need and they never get beyond the second level on Maslow's Hierarchy of
Needs.
Moms For Bigotry
are anti-free speech, they're anti-abortion, they're anti-LGBTQ+,
they're anti-books and knowledge. They fail every feminist test in the
book and Naomi Wolf cannot make up for the actions she's taken. She is
not to be trusted today or ten years in the future. And if she pops too
many pills this week and dies, I won't give a s**t. Or, as Cass
Elliot would say, "I wouldn't piss on her if she were on fire."
She
knows better. She is working with Moms For Bigotry and others who are
working to destroy the lives of women. She knows that. She knows what a
struggle it was for all of us to get here and it doesn't matter to
her. It's more important that she be a 'celebrity' and 'noticed.'
That, for her, outweighs all the work we've done and the work women did
before us. She's Serena Joy and Aunt Lydia combined.
Also supporting Moms For Bigotry? Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Junior just can't tell the truth about anything, can he?
During
an exchange with an NBC News reporter at the Iowa State Fair on Sunday,
Kennedy said, “I believe a decision to abort a child should be up to
the women during the first three months of life," but added: "Once a
child is viable, outside the womb, I think then the state has an
interest in protecting the child." He then went on to say that he
would support a national ban on abortion at 15-weeks or possibly
21-weeks, only for his campaign to later clarify that he does not, in
fact, support any type of federal restrictions on the procedure.
“Today,
Mr. Kennedy misunderstood a question posed to him by a NBC reporter in a
crowded, noisy exhibit hall at the Iowa State Fair," his campaign said.
"Mr. Kennedy's position on abortion is that it is always the woman's
right to choose. He does not support legislation banning abortion."
For
what it’s worth, he has expressed support for abortion previously.
During a town hall in New Hampshire earlier this summer he said he was
“pro-choice,” adding: " I'm not going be in a position, put myself in
a position, where I am going to tell a woman to bring a child to term.”
But,
as Republicans have learned, expressing any type of support for federal
restrictions on the procedure could be deeply damaging to any 2024
candidate, as such restrictions at a state level, even in red states,
has proven to be highly unpopular among Democratic, Independent and even
Republican voters.
Please grasp that he
decided to weigh in on the issue of women's reproductive health but didn't
feel the need to do any studying before he weighed in -- I believe that
is the text book example of "mansplaining." Cheryl, take your moron
home with you, it's time to get off the campaign trail. USA TODAY notes that he's trying to walk back the comments. Too late. Too damn late.
And let's not what a liar he is. The campaign's insisting he misunderstood the question.
You
misunderstand the question then you say "yes" when you mean "no," or
you don't hear the topic they were asking about so you're commenting on
the automobile industry instead of abortion. Misunderstanding the
question does not result in the response Nicole noted:
During
an exchange with an NBC News reporter at the Iowa State Fair on Sunday,
Kennedy said, “I believe a decision to abort a child should be up to
the women during the first three months of life," but added: "Once a
child is viable, outside the womb, I think then the state has an
interest in protecting the child." He then went on to say that he would
support a national ban on abortion at 15-weeks or possibly 21-weeks,
only for his campaign to later clarify that he does not, in fact,
support any type of federal restrictions on the procedure.
He's such a damn liar.
Did someone say Ron DeSantis?
I
don't know who's more stupid: Ronald or CNBC. They had an interview
with Ronald where he lied non-stop -- that's not a surprise. But what
was a surprise was the the reporter was so stupid he tries to move
Ronald along when Ronald's making DISNEY's case for them (for DISNEY).
Can he end the feud, he's asked? No, he responds back because of DISNEY
content. That's really not the role of a governor. And that really
strengthens DISNEY's case. But when you work for CNBC, you aren't paid
for having brains.
In more bad news for Ronald, James Bickerton (NEWSWEEK) reports:
Ron DeSantis has slipped into third place in the race to be the 2024 Republican presidential nominee, behind Donald Trump and businessman Vivek Ramaswamy, according to a new poll.
The
survey, by polling company Cygnal, found 10 percent of likely
Republican primary voters have DeSantis as their preferred GOP
candidate, against 53 percent for Trump and 11 percent for Ramaswamy. A
spokesperson for the Ramaswamy campaign told Newsweek "he's just getting warmed up."
Don't worry, Ronald, for you, it gets worse. Julia Manchester (THE HILL) reports:
Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) has surpassed Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R)
in the critical early presidential primary state of New Hampshire,
according to a new Emerson College survey released on Tuesday.
Christie leapfrogged DeSantis’s second place in the Granite State,
garnering nine percent support. DeSantis’s support, on the other hand
fell to eight percent from 17 percent in March. Christie’s one-point lead over DeSantis falls within the poll’s plus or minus 3.4 percent margin of error.
The following sites updated:
No comments:
Post a Comment