Connect with us

Young Republican Writer: ‘Obama’s America’ Has Become ‘United States of Gaymeria’

Published

on

A writer for the New York Young Republican Club is angered that “Obama’s America” has become “Gaymeria,” all because a friend of his sent him a photo of the rainbow pride flag being flown at the U.S. embassy in London.

William Palumbo apparently isn’t happy about America’s increasing support for the LGBT community. When a friend sent him a conveniently cropped photo — showing the LGBT pride flag hanging alongside either door of the U.S. embassy in London — he went ballistic, penning what the Huffington Post labeled an “epic rant.”

In “United States of Gaymeria? U.S. Embassy in London Flies Rainbow Flag,” Palumbo writes,

Can I pose a serious question?  At what point does replacing the American flag with the rainbow flag, a symbol of gay/LGBTQ(RSTUVWXYZ) pride from embassies abroad become an impeachable offense in itself?

Last time I checked, the official flag of the country was the Stars and Stripes, not the same rainbow that is found on the doors of gay bars downtown.

He explained that there was no American flag in sight.  Here’s a previous picture of the embassy, from a wider angle.  Notice the flag on the roof.  According to my friend, the only flags visible on that day were the rainbow flags.

Now, note what Palumbo — angered that not only was the gay flag was flying but the U.S. flag (supposedly) was not — didn’t do. He didn’t call the U.S. Dept. of State, or Google “US embassy London gay flag.”

But why would a low-information uber-conspiracy-pushing blogger with an axe to grind bother to do his homework when it’s so much easier to scratch an anti-Obama itch with a dubious blog post?

Dubious, because a simple Google search turned up this image, posted to Instagram, of the U.S. embassy in London flying the gay pride rainbow flags — with the U.S. flag proudly flying on the roof.

View this post on Instagram

Awww look at that! #USEmbassy #London #UK #pride #gaypride #lgbt

A post shared by Andrija Petkeviciute (@andrijamp) on

That photo was reportedly taken June 9 of this year.

The “dog ate my homework” excuse aside, or, in this case, the easier, “my friend was mistaken” excuse which Palumbo might want to pony up, here’s what else he claimed.

Barack Obama has a “strange relationship with the Emir of Qatar.” In other words, Palumbo seems to be saying that Obama is gay.

That “relationship” link comes up blank — the story seems to have been taken down, just like the New York Young Republicans Club took down Palumbo’s “United States of Gaymeria? U.S. Embassy in London Flies Rainbow Flag.”

Wonder why?

According to Palumbo, he’s the victim of “censorship” by the New York Young Republican Club president. 

Fortunately, Google preserved his “epic rant.”

Other concerns Palumbo chose to unleash?

Mohamed Atta, a 9/11 hijacker from Egypt, was also gay, and this is not so uncommon among jihadis.

And then this.

The “U.S. Department of State puts social policy ahead of rational and effective diplomacy,” and so, “we are all put in danger.”  

We are all punished. And that includes anyone in the United States that may own and fly their very own rainbow flag.  We are lab rats to the Obama administration, like we are to their best buddies at Facebook, who use us for psychological experiments.

 

Hat tip: Business Insider

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.

OPINION

Trump Would Not Oppose State Pregnancy Surveillance or Abortion Prosecution

Published

on

With little more than six months until Election Day, Donald Trump is preparing for an “authoritarian” presidency, and a massive, multi-million dollar operation called Project 2025, organized by The Heritage Foundation and headed by a former top Trump White House official, is proposing what it would like to be his agenda. In its 920-page policy manual the word “abortion” appears, by NCRM’s count, nearly 200 times.

Trump appears to hold a more narrow grasp of the issue of abortion, and is holding on to the framing he recently settled on, which he hoped would end debate on the issue after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. One day before the Arizona Supreme Court ruled an 1864 law banning abortion was still legal and enforceable, Trump declared states have total control over abortion and can do whatever they like.

Despite the results of that framing, Trump is sticking with that policy.

In a set of interviews with TIME‘s Eric Cortellessa, published Tuesday, the four-times indicted ex-president said he would not stop states from monitoring all pregnancies within their borders and prosecuting anyone who violates any abortion ban, if he were to again become president. He also refused to weigh in on a nationwide abortion ban or on medication abortion.

READ MORE: ‘Won’t Stop Him’: Judge Threatens Trump With Jail for Gag Order Breach

Recently, Trump backed away from endorsing a nationwide abortion ban, but in the past he has said there should be “punishment” for women who have abortions. The group effectively creating what could become his polices, The Heritage Foundation and its Project 2025, fully support a ban on abortion.

The scope of the TIME interviews was extensive.

“What emerged in two interviews with Trump, and conversations with more than a dozen of his closest advisers and confidants, were the outlines of an imperial presidency that would reshape America and its role in the world,” Cortellessa writes in his article.

“To carry out a deportation operation designed to remove more than 11 million people from the country, Trump told me, he would be willing to build migrant detention camps and deploy the U.S. military, both at the border and inland. He would let red states monitor women’s pregnancies and prosecute those who violate abortion bans. He would, at his personal discretion, withhold funds appropriated by Congress, according to top advisers. He would be willing to fire a U.S. Attorney who doesn’t carry out his order to prosecute someone, breaking with a tradition of independent law enforcement that dates from America’s founding.”

TIME’s Cortellessa also notes that Trump “is weighing pardons for every one of his supporters accused of attacking the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, more than 800 of whom have pleaded guilty or been convicted by a jury. He might not come to the aid of an attacked ally in Europe or Asia if he felt that country wasn’t paying enough for its own defense. He would gut the U.S. civil service, deploy the National Guard to American cities as he sees fit, close the White House pandemic-preparedness office, and staff his Administration with acolytes who back his false assertion that the 2020 election was stolen.”

READ MORE: ‘Let’s Get a Warrant for Her Backyard’: Noem ‘Done Politically’ Right Wing Pundits Say

On abortion, Trump has repeatedly bragged he personally ended Roe v. Wade, which was a nearly 50-year old landmark Supreme Court ruling that found women have a constitutional right to abortion, and by extension, bodily autonomy.

But Trump has also “sought to defuse a potent campaign issue for the Democrats by saying he wouldn’t sign a federal ban. In our interview at Mar-a-Lago, he declines to commit to vetoing any additional federal restrictions if they came to his desk. More than 20 states now have full or partial abortion bans, and Trump says those policies should be left to the states to do what they want, including monitoring women’s pregnancies. ‘I think they might do that,’ he says.”

“When I ask whether he would be comfortable with states prosecuting women for having abortions beyond the point the laws permit, he says, ‘It’s irrelevant whether I’m comfortable or not. It’s totally irrelevant, because the states are going to make those decisions.’ President Biden has said he would fight state anti-abortion measures in court and with regulation,” Cortellessa adds.

Trump in his TIME interview continued to hold on to the convenient claim as president he would have absolutely nothing to do with abortion.

But “Trump’s allies don’t plan to be passive on abortion if he returns to power. The Heritage Foundation has called for enforcement of a 19th century statute that would outlaw the mailing of abortion pills. The Republican Study Committee (RSC), which includes more than 80% of the House GOP conference, included in its 2025 budget proposal the Life at Conception Act, which says the right to life extends to ‘the moment of fertilization.’ I ask Trump if he would veto that bill if it came to his desk. ‘I don’t have to do anything about vetoes,’ Trump says, ‘because we now have it back in the states.'”

That’s inaccurate, if a national abortion ban, or any legislation on women’s reproductive rights, comes to his desk. And they will, if there’s a Republican majority in the House and Senate.

READ MORE: Hunter Biden Plans Lawsuit Against Fox News Amid ‘Conspiracy of Disinformation’

Brooke Goren, Deputy Communications Director for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) writes, “In the same interview, Trump:
– Repeatedly refuses to say he wouldn’t sign a national ban
– Left the door open to signing legislation that could ban IVF
– Stood by his allies, who are making plans to unilaterally ban medication abortion nationwide if he’s elected.”

Cortellessa ends his piece with this thought: “Whether or not he was kidding about bringing a tyrannical end to our 248-year experiment in democracy, I ask him, Don’t you see why many Americans see such talk of dictatorship as contrary to our most cherished principles? Trump says no. Quite the opposite, he insists. ‘I think a lot of people like it.'”

The Bulwark’s Bill Kristol, once a hard-core conservative Republican, now a Democrat as of 2020, served up this take on TIME’s Trump interview and overview of a second Trump reign.

“Some of us: A second term really would be far more dangerous than his first, it would be real authoritarianism–with more than a touch of fascism.

Trump apologists: No way, calm down.

Trump: Yup, authoritarianism all the way!”

Continue Reading

News

‘Won’t Stop Him’: Judge Threatens Trump With Jail for Gag Order Breach

Published

on

New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan found Donald Trump in criminal contempt of court for nine violations of his gag order, and served up a threat of time behind bars if he continues down that path. Some legal experts say Merchan’s punishment could have been broader or stronger, while others called it a “smart move.”

Justice Merchan fined Trump $1000 per violation, the maximum allowed under New York law, and warned the ex-president he could face time in jail if he continues to violate the order.

“Defendant is hereby warned that the Court will not tolerate continued willful violations of its lawful orders and that if necessary and appropriate under the circumstances, it will impose an incarceratory punishment,” Justice Merchan wrote.

Merchan also gave Trump until 2:15 PM to remove the nine social media and campaign website posts that violated his gag order.

READ MORE: ‘Let’s Get a Warrant for Her Backyard’: Noem ‘Done Politically’ Right Wing Pundits Say

“Trump will see Justice Merchan’s $9,000 fine for violating the gag order as a reasonable cost for the ability to continue attacking the judge, court and rule of law. It won’t stop him,” warned Bloomberg Opinion executive editor Tim O’Brien, who is the author of a 2005 book on Trump.

Calling the opinion “well-reasoned” and “balanced,” professor of law Ryan Goodman, a former Special Counsel for the U.S. Dept. of Defense, made a point of noting its historic nature:

Professor of law and former FBI General Counsel Andrew Weissmann lamented Justice Merchan’s missed opportunity.

“Judge missed an opportunity to impose a monitor over his social media posts and to suggest the penalty will be considered at end of trial.”

But national security attorney Brad Moss praised the punishment in Merchan’s contempt finding.

“Smart move by Merchan. This is the first criminal contempt finding. It’s a warning to Trump that the games won’t be tolerated. If he does it again, and Merchan does have to cross the rubicon and jail him, it strengthens Merchan’s argument on appeal.”

READ MORE: Peter Navarro’s Latest Attempt to Get Out of Jail Smacked Down by SCOTUS
 

Continue Reading

News

‘Let’s Get a Warrant for Her Backyard’: Noem ‘Done Politically’ Right Wing Pundits Say

Published

on

South Dakota Republican Governor Kristi Noem‘s bragging about dragging her 14-month old puppy into a gravel pit and shooting her to death because she “hated” the dog is likely the end of her political career, right-wing pundits are now saying.

On Friday when The Guardian broke the news in a preview of Noem’s upcoming book, outrage on the left was immediate, but outrage on the right trickled in, then increased. Even with Noem doubling down, declaring her killing of the puppy (and a goat that same day, same way) happened 20 years ago, people on the right are expressing anger.

A Democratic pollster says 81% of Americans oppose Noem killing her puppy, The Guardian later reported.

“After learning about Gov. Noem’s actions, only 14% consider her to be a good choice for vice president on the Republican ticket. By a 2:1 margin, even Republicans say the governor would not be a good choice (42% vs. 21%),” the pollster, New River Strategies, stated.

READ MORE: Hunter Biden Plans Lawsuit Against Fox News Amid ‘Conspiracy of Disinformation’

Noem’s book, “No Going Back,” to be released May 7, has a number one ranking at Amazon. Publisher Center Street, a Hachette Book Group imprint, also publishes other right-wing politicians including Ben Carson, Newt Gingrich, and Vivek Ramaswamy. Endorsing the book are other right-wingers, including Donald Trump, Fox News’ Rachel Campos-Duffy, athlete and anti-trans activist Riley Gaines, and anti-LGBTQ extremist group creator Chaya Raichik of Libs of TikTok.

On Monday, as Mediaite reported, two Fox News pundits had had it.

Jason Chaffetz, a former GOP Congressman, said, “she just destroyed her political career. I don’t think there’s anybody on any side of the aisle, any human being that thinks it’s acceptable to go to a gravel pit and shoot a dog in the face and kill it when it’s 14 months old. That’s. I mean, that’s just hideous. So she’s done politically, and I’m a friend of hers. I served with her, but politically, there’s no recovering from this.”

Fox News media analyst Joe Concha said, “as a dog owner my whole life,” the story of Noem shooting her dog “absolutely makes my blood boil.”

RELATED: Noem Defends Shooting Her 14-Month Old Puppy to Death, Brags She Has Media ‘Gasping’

“How utterly heartless do you have to be to shoot a 14-month-old dog in the face? Because look, if it wasn’t doing its job on the farm, or is attacking chicken or people, okay, you’re a public figure, or at least you have a platform in some way, shape, or form. Even if you’re a private citizen, you very easily could have posted somewhere, ‘I’m putting my dog up for adoption because maybe it’s not working out here on the ranch,’ and I can guarantee you many people would have raised their hand to take that dog in,” Concha said, adding, “she just destroyed any chance she had of being Donald Trump’s vice president, if she had any chance at all. There’s no going back from this.”

Right wing talk show host Megyn Kelly said Trump is “too smart” to “pick somebody who’s managed to do the impossible and unite Democrats and Republicans alike in their anger for this woman who shot her puppy in the face.”

At the right wing National Review, Jeffrey Blehar writes: “Let’s Get a Warrant for Kristi Noem’s Backyard.”

“I guess I just don’t like people who boast about shooting puppies,” Blehar adds on social media. “And goats. And horses. And who knows what else, until cops have done an aerial scan of the property and gotten a backhoe out to excavate the suspicious piles of dirt.”

 

 

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.