Connect with us

Trump’s New Navy Secretary Opposes Trump’s Transgender Ban: ‘Any Patriot’ Should Be Allowed to Serve

Published

on

‘Any Patriot That Wants to Serve and Meets All the Requirements Should Be Able to Serve in Our Military’

President Trump’s newly-confirmed Secretary of the Navy opposes his ban on transgender service members. Navy Secretary Richard V. Spencer Thursday night said while he will follow any command given by the Commander-in-Chief “any patriot” should be allowed to serve in the nation’s armed forces, The Hill reports.

“We will process and take direction of a policy that is developed by the secretary [with] direction from the president and march out smartly,” Secretary Spencer told reporters after a visit to Naval Station Norfolk in Virginia. 

But he also respectfully expressed an opposing opinion on transgender soldiers.

“On a fundamental basis, any patriot that wants to serve and meets all the requirements should be able to serve in our military.”

Spencer is not the only senior U.S. military official to oppose Trump’s total ban on transgender service members, which has yet to be implemented after the President tweeted it out of the blue two weeks ago.

Last week the Coast Guard commandant, Admiral Paul Zukunft, expressed strong support for transgender service members.

“I will not turn my back,” he recently told one transgender service member. “We have made an investment in you, and you have made an investment in the Coast Guard, and I will not break faith.”

New polling released last week finds the vast majority, nearly seven out of 10 Americans (68%) support transgender people serving in the military.

The White House reportedly has approved “guidance policy” to implement the ban, but there apparently has been no movement on the document.

On Thursday, perhaps aware of the extreme backlash his ban has received, Trump pushed back.

Speaking of transgender people, Trump told reporters, “I have great respect for the community.”

“I think I’ve had great support, or I’ve had great support from that community. I got a lot of votes,” Trump falsely claimed. Only 14 percent of the LGBT community voted for him, far less than other GOP candidates.

Wrongly claiming “it’s been a very complicated issue for the military, it’s been a very confusing issue for the military,” the president added, “I think I’m doing the military a great favor” by announcing the ban. That’s actually false.

As NCRM has reported, Trump is facing at least one lawsuit filed this week, which charges the ban is unconstitutional. He’ll also have to find about $1 billion to implement it.

There’s still time – join the more than 1000 people who have signed our petition: Tell President Trump You Support Our Transgender Service Members and Oppose His New Ban

To comment on this article and other NCRM content, visit our Facebook page.

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

FIRST AMENDMENT? WHAT FIRST AMENDMENT?

Justice Clarence Thomas Believes Media Criticism of Decisions ‘Jeopardizes Any Faith’ in the Supreme Court

Published

on

Justice Clarence Thomas complained about the harsh criticism the Supreme Court has received since allowing a controversial anti-abortion law to go into effect in Texas.

Thomas delivered the 2021 Tocqueville Lecture at the University of Notre Dame on Thursday, where he complained about media criticism, The Washington Post reported.

“I think the media makes it sound as though you are just always going right to your personal preference. So if they think you are anti-abortion or something personally, they think that’s the way you always will come out. They think you’re for this or for that. They think you become like a politician,” Thomas said.

“That’s a problem. You’re going to jeopardize any faith in the legal institutions,” he said.

A second Post report on the speech noted Thomas’ remarks on the ongoing mistrust of the court.

“The court was thought to be the least dangerous branch and we may have become the most dangerous,” Thomas said. “And I think that’s problematic.”

The newspaper noted the lecture was interrupted by protesters who yelled, “I still believe Anita Hill.”

 

Continue Reading

AMERICAN IDIOT

‘Genius’ Madison Cawthorn Mocked for Claiming the Constitution Prohibits Airlines From Requiring Vaccinations

Published

on

U.S. Rep. Madison Cawthorn is once again being mocked, this time for yet again not understanding the very basics of American democracy.

On Thursday the Republican from North Carolina claimed it is “illegal” and unconstitutional for airlines to require passengers to be vaccinated, because “you actually have a constitutionally protected right to free, unrestricted travel within the United States.”

That last part has a tiny shred of truth to it. Just not in the way Congressman Cawthorn thinks.

(Those inteested in the legal mechanics should examine this and this.)

Anyone could take a minute to come up with arguments why his claim is false, including that anyone driving a car is required to have a driver’s license and insurance, and wear a seat belt.

The freshman Congressman was quickly mocked:

 

 

Continue Reading

News

29 Months Later Bill Barr’s Super Secret Russia Special Counsel Files His Second Indictment – for Alleged Lying

Published

on

In April of 2019 then-Attorney General Bill Barr ordered the U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut to open and lead an investigation into Russia – not into how Russia has been attacking the United States via cyber warfare, undermining Americans’ trust in American institutions, and using social media to do it, but into whether or not the Federal Bureau of Investigation had been warranted in opening an investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, including its investigation of Donald Trump.

On Thursday, 29 months after Barr first appointed John Durham (photo, right) to lead that super-secret investigation, 11 months after Barr secretly turned Durham into a special counsel to ensure the investigation would continue past his and Trump’s tenure, and after spending untold millions of taxpayer dollars, the Dept. of Justice has announced Durham has obtained a second indictment.

“A prominent cybersecurity lawyer was indicted on a charge of lying to the F.B.I. five years ago during a meeting about Donald J. Trump and Russia, the Justice Department announced on Thursday,” The New York Times reports.

The lawyer, Michael Sussmann, “of the law firm Perkins Coie, which has deep ties to the Democratic Party — is accused of making a false statement about his client at the meeting.”

Mr. Sussmann’s defense lawyers have denied the accusation, saying that he did not make a false statement, that the evidence he did is weak and that who he was representing was not a material fact in any case. They have vowed to fight any charge in court.

At issue is who was Sussman working for when he “relayed concerns by cybersecurity researchers who believed that unusual internet data might be evidence of a covert communications channel between computer servers associated with the Trump Organization and with Alfa Bank, a Kremlin-linked Russian financial institution.”

Apparently not at issue is if the Trump Organization or campaign had a secret communications channel to a Kremlin-linked organization.

Frequent viewers of MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow are likely familiar with her reporting on Alfa Bank, including this segment from October 2018:

Durham has not obtained any indictment against anyone in Russia, any Russian operatives, any Trump Organization or campaign official, or anyone who may have been involved in Russia’s attack on the United States.

The only other indictment Durham has obtained from his two-plus year investigation? The Times in 2019 reported on a “low-level” FBI lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith, who “altered an email that officials used to prepare to seek court approval to renew the wiretap,” on Carter Page, a Trump campaign advisor.

One expert calls the indictment “weak.”

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.