Franklin Graham is waging war against the Equality Act, legislation that would merely extend the already-existing Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include LGBT people in areas such as housing, credit, education, and public accommodations.
Graham went on an insane diatribe in the July/August edition of his Decision Magazine, calling the fight against equality “A Battle for the Soul of the Nation.”
According to Graham, were the Equality Act, which passed the House in May and is languishing in the Senate, ever to become law, it would be, he warns, “a nightmare from which this nation may never recover.”
Think about that.
He is literally warning his constituency that merely treating LGBTQ people with the same respect that white Christian heterosexual men are granted as a birthright would be a “nightmare,” and have “catastrophic consequences.”
This legislation will have catastrophic consequences for competitive sports, along with churches and faith-based nonprofits who would lose all protections to hire people who adhere to their Biblical statements of faith. Christians will be persecuted for their sincerely held beliefs as never before. The clear teachings of the Bible on the sins of homosexuality and abortion will no doubt be considered “hate speech.” It will be a nightmare from which this nation may never recover.
That is, of course, all false.
Graham, of course, knows that the Equality Act has no chance of even coming to the floor of the U.S. Senate for a vote, as long as Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is in charge. And he knows President Donald Trump will never, ever sign it should it by some miracle reach his desk.
So what’s Graham’s real agenda? Why the feverish fear-mongering?
He shows his hand, saying: “If the Senate majority changes or if enough Republican senators change their position, it would be up to the president to veto the bill. And if that office were to change hands in 2020, I have little doubt this would become the law of the land.”
As with many things Graham does, he is using his tax-exempt 501(c)(3) non-profit status to campaign-while-not-campaigning for the President and the Republican Party.
Graham frames his argument by pointing to the very genuine support given to LGBTQ Americans and the very American actions exhibited by the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates.
Calling it “immoral behavior clearly condemned by Scripture,” Graham complained that “New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand served drinks at a gay bar; Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke sported a rainbow sweatband; and gay South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg talked openly about his coming out,” during Pride month.
Imagine, a straight woman serving drinks at (horrors!) a gay bar, a straight man showing support for LGBTQ people, and a gay man talking – “openly” – about his journey of self discovery.
These acts, Graham writes, reveal “the deepening depravity that now vexes our country.”
Graham sees these actions, along with the House passage of the Equality Act and the Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell marriage decision, as a sign “that same moral and spiritual framework, which has held our nation together for 243 years, is now unraveling so quickly that I fear for the future of our children and grandchildren.”
How sad that a 67-year old man of faith has so little faith in the American people he claims to serve, and in our Founding Fathers he claims to revere.
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.
Trump Blames Obama for Iran Attack Then Takes Credit for Obama’s Accomplishments in Off-the-Rails Address to the Nation
After three years there were likely few Americans hoping for some form of comfort from President Donald Trump’s address to the nation Wednesday in the wake of Tuesday night’s attack by Iran on air bases in Iraq that host thousands of U.S. Military troops. And President Trump, true to form, did not offer any.
The President descended as if from heaven (photo above) onto a stage filled with his military generals and advisors,
Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and Secretary of Defense Mark Esper. A clear attempt to show strength which the administration apparently felt the Commander-in-Chief could not summon if he appeared on camera alone. A sad statement.
“As long as I’m president of the United States Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon,” Trump, out of breath, declared as he walked up to the podium, flanked by his men in uniform. He then said: “Good morning.”
President Trump was expected to give Americans hope and comfort, and a clear indication that they are safe from attack.
Instead, he tried to show strength through military might – with no suggestion diplomacy might be a better route.
And he lied.
“The missiles fired last night at us and our allies were paid for with the funds made available by the last administration,” Trump claimed, blaming President Barack Obama in a speech watched around the world.
“Iran’s hostilities substantially increased after the foolish Iran nuclear deal was signed in 2013,” Trump claimed. (It was actually 2015.)
He added, “they were given $150 billion, not to mention $1.8 billion in cash. Instead of saying ‘thank you’ to the United States, they chanted ‘death to America.’ In fact, they chanted ‘death to America’ the day the agreement was signed.”
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) January 8, 2020
Those billions belonged to Iran, and reportedly were less than the numbers Trump quoted. They were Iranian funds frozen which had been paid to the U.S. for arms never delivered. It is a frequent trump lie he tells at rallies over and over.
“Then, Iran went on a terror spree, funded by the money from the deal, and created hell in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Iraq,” Trump claimed in his address to the nation – and to the world. “The missiles fired last night at us and our allies were paid for with the funds made available by the last administration. The regime also greatly tightened the reins on their own country, even recently killing 1,500 people at the many protests that are taking place all throughout Iran.”
“The very defective JCPOA [the “Iran deal”] expires shortly anyway,” Trump said. That’s just false – another lie Trump often tells. Various parts expire between 2025 and 2030.
He claimed the JCPOA “gives Iran a clear and quick path to nuclear breakout,” which again is false.
After falsely blaming Obama for Iran’s attack he went on to take credit for Obama paving to road to energy independence.
“Over the last three years, under my leadership, our economy is stronger than ever before and America has achieved energy independence. These historic accomplishments changed our strategic priorities. These are accomplishments that nobody thought were possible.”
Here’s CNN’s Keith Boykin with graphs showing just how false Trump’s energy independence remarks were:
So Trump gave his big Iran speech, lied again by blaming President Obama, denied responsibility for the effects of his own withdrawal from the Iran Deal (JCPOA), and took credit for increased US oil and gas production that began under President Obama.https://t.co/DjVeCXqTV3 pic.twitter.com/c2l3WA3p8K
— Keith Boykin (@keithboykin) January 8, 2020
Legal Expert Makes the Case for Trump to Resign — but Why Have So Few Others Demanded He Step Down?
In a new op-ed for CNN, constitutional law professor F. Michael Higginbotham argued Friday that President Donald Trump should resign from office.
Higginbotham argued in the op-ed that President Richard Nixon’s resignation in the face of his own impeachment could be seen to represent, despite his grave abuses, “an act of patriotism.”
Nixon “protected not only his own historical legacy but also the country he had taken an oath to serve,” Higginbotham wrote. “Donald Trump should follow suit.”
Trump should resign so the country can begin the process of healing. The divisions in the country today are even more corrosive than they were in 1974. That’s why it’s even more important that Trump emulate the best of Richard Nixon, who, in a rare moment of grace, understood he could only weaken the nation he led by focusing solely on himself, and chose the better path.
In President Trump’s acceptance speech of the Republican nomination at the Republican National Convention in 2016, he told the nation, “Nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it.” While many mocked the hubris behind that claim, at this moment of national danger it is undoubtedly true: Trump alone can spare the nation the painful ordeal of an impeachment trial in the Senate.
While Trump is written about extensively every single day, such calls are relatively few. For all the tumult, investigation, and fierce partisanship Trump’s presidency has produced, it’s produced surprisingly sparse demands for his resignation. Even as Trump has been impeached by the House of Representatives, and top newspapershave called for the president’s removal, the other option — the only way a president has actually been ousted from office via the impeachment process — remains woefully under-discussed. And though Democrats have occasionally called for the resignation of administration officials such as Attorney General Bill Barr and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, they seem hesitant to take the same step for the president himself. Instead, they often call on him to stop creating division and “lead” the country.
But “leading the country” is exactly what Trump has repeatedly proven himself incapable of doing.
What’s odd about the relative dearth of calls for is that Trump’s conduct clearly merits it. I’ve argued that calling for Trump’s resignation was the Democrats’ best move since they took the House of Representatives. And if, as many do, you think it’s appropriate for Trump to be impeached or removed, you should probably also think that it would be best if he just stepped down without all the conflict. In fact, it would be reasonable to argue that Trump should resign, but that an ultimately doomed impeachment process is too disruptive for the country. So in theory, there should be more support for Trump’s resignation than there is for his removal.
So why aren’t we deluged with calls for Trump’s resignation? CNN host Chris Cuomo’s response to the Higginbotham piece probably sums up the explanation:
Zero chance https://t.co/tICs6UFxKB
— Christopher C. Cuomo (@ChrisCuomo) December 27, 2019
Everyone assumes — almost certainly correctly — that Trump will never agree to resign the presidency. He hates admitting failure, he loves the adulation the office provides, and he fears the potential legal consequences of no longer being protected from prosecution. Nixon was a monster with a devoted base of support, but he realized eventually that it was time to throw in the towel. It’s nearly impossible to imagine a plausible scenario in which Trump does the same — and not just because the Republican Party seems even more devoted to the current president than it was to Nixon. He won’t even admit that his phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was far from “perfect,” even though this admission could have helped him.
But the fact that Trump would almost never agree to resign doesn’t mean we should ignore the obvious fact that he should. Ignoring this option lets Trump off the hook for his own responsibilities, and it lowers the bar for the presidential standard of behavior.
Many Republicans have spoken out against impeachment by citing the fact that it will be divisive for the country and create more animosity or tension. By calling for resignation as a potential alternative to impeachment, Trump’s critics could point out that any resulting division from impeachment proceedings is at least as much the fault of the president. Democrats could argue that Trump’s behavior forced them to pursue impeachment, but if he were gracious and cared about the country, he could bring it to a peaceful end.
This reframes the discourse around Trump’s impeachment in a useful way, especially when pressed against Republicans who can’t bring themselves to defend the president’s conduct on the merits. And it exposes and dispenses with the implicit idea that Democrats are the only actors responsible for preserving constitutional government; that obligation falls just as heavily on the shoulders of Trump and the Republicans.
Trump White House Already Scripting How Impeachment Trial Will Play Out? WH Counsel Just Walked Into McConnell’s Office
Just how much control will the Trump White House have over the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump?
The White House Counsel, Pat Cipollone, just walked into Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s office. Chances are good it wasn’t for a friendly game of checkers.
And Cipollone was accompanied by Eric Ueland, a former member of the Trump transition team who Trump tried to hand a top State Dept. job to but was forced to pull his nomination. A recent promotion has elevated him to now serving as the White House Director of Legislative Affairs, after spending years working for then-Senator Jeff Sessions.
Pat Cipollone and Eric Uleland just popped into McConnell’s office pic.twitter.com/FFQCOcJglO
— Alan He (@alanhe) December 12, 2019
One thing is clear: the Senate should not be working with the White House to pre-determine how the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump will be conducted or will play out.
Remember, it was just six says ago that Cipollone sent this angry letter to Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, effectively saying Trump and the White House would not participate in the House’s impeachment hearings.
WH counsel Cipollone breaks out the Sharpie and tells the House Judiciary Committee the WH will not participate pic.twitter.com/EF4A8fE48c
— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) December 6, 2019
Cipollone called the impeachment inquiry “baseless.” He insisted it was both a waste of time and should be done “fast” so Trump could win in the Senate.
Experts say Cipollone’s December 6 letter in conjunction with his repeated refusal to hand over any documents or comply with congressional subpoenas may have forced the House to add the obstruction charge to the Articles of Impeachment.
Which apparently is where we are today.
- FIRST AMENDMENT? WHAT FIRST AMENDMENT?3 days ago
Draft of Trump Executive Order Would Have Barr and White House Collect Information on Social Media Users: Reports
- THIS IS HOW IT'S DONE3 days ago
‘Show Us the Flynn Tapes or Buzz Off’: Dem Rep. Swalwell Destroys Trump’s Former DNI in Epic Twitter ‘Bloodbath’
- PRESIDENT 5-YEAR OLD2 days ago
In Flailing All-Caps Rant Trump Admits if Americans Are Allowed to Vote by Mail It Will Be ‘The End’ of the GOP
- THAT SETTLES THAT1 day ago
‘Not Exculpatory’: Just-Declassified Transcripts Prove Flynn Lied – ‘He Also Betrayed America’
- AMERICAN IDIOT3 days ago
Trump Promises to Sign Executive Order Today to Punish Tech Firms After Twitter Fact-Checked Two of His Tweets
- AMERICAN IDIOT2 days ago
Watch: Trump Warns Kids in California Are Committing Voter Fraud by ‘Raiding Mailboxes’ for Vote by Mail Ballots
- FIRST AMENDMENT? WHAT FIRST AMENDMENT?2 days ago
Watch: CNN’s Omar Jimenez Describes His On-Camera Arrest by Minnesota State Police After Being Released
- FIRST AMENDMENT? WHAT FIRST AMENDMENT?2 days ago
Barr Blasts Social Media’s ‘Bait and Switch’ and ‘Censorship’ as Trump Suggests He’d Shut Down Twitter