Connect with us

Trump Ignores LGBT Pride Month

Published

on

Trump Promised He Would Be the Most Pro-LGBT President Ever

President Donald Trump appears to have decided to ignore LGBT Pride Month. While the President on Wednesday signed proclamations honoring June as Great Outdoors Month, National Homeownership Month, African-American Music Appreciation Month, and National Ocean Month, he has not issued a proclamation honoring LGBT Pride Month.

(Given that Trump is expected to pull the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Agreement at 3 PM today, honoring June as Great Outdoors Month and National Ocean Month seems especially hypocritical.)

Last year in June President Trump posted a surprising tweet, disconnected from anything that was actually happening:

That same week last year, during a speech on terrorism Trump falsely claimed he is the most pro-gay candidate in any major party running for office, and assailed the Obama administration’s record on LGBT civil rights, which he called “LBGT.” Days earlier he had addressed one of the most anti-LGBT crowds in America, Ralph Reed’s Faith & Freedom Coalition, promising he would “restore faith to its proper mantle in our society,” and his administration “will respect and defend Christian Americans. Christian Americans,” he repeated for emphasis.

In case there had been any confusion on Trump’s stance on same-sex marriage – he is wholly opposed – candidate Trump posted this tweet last year:

“There is no reception on Trump’s agenda, and the absence of a Pride Month proclamation is quite conspicuous,” Zack Ford at ThinkProgress writes today. He notes that Trump “could have become the first Republican president to acknowledge Pride Month with a proclamation, but he didn’t — and the silence is deafening.”

Shin Inouye‏, the former Obama administration White House Office of Communications Director of Specialty Media and USCIS Press Secretary and Acting Senior Advisor for Intergovernmental & External Affairs, made clear Trump “couldn’t be bothered” to include LGBT people in his monthly proclamations:

President Obama, by comparison, every June opened the White House up for celebrations with the LGBT community, hosting events for LGBT activists, LGBT journalists, and others. Here he is in 2012:

Of course, proclamations aren’t policy, but Trump has made clear he will not support the LGBT community. His DOJ and Education Dept. rescinded the Obama-era guidelines protecting transgender children, his “health care” plan would devastate LGBT people and people living with HIV/AIDS, his cabinet and senior staff, with very few exceptions, are anti-LGBT; the list goes on and on.

But in case President Trump wants to know what an LGBT Pride Month proclamation looks like, here is President Barack Obama’s from 2016:

 

                         THE WHITE HOUSE
                  Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release                               May 31, 2016

LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER PRIDE MONTH, 2016

——-

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION 

     Since our founding, America has advanced on an unending
path toward becoming a more perfect Union.  This journey, led
by forward-thinking individuals who have set their sights on
reaching for a brighter tomorrow, has never been easy or smooth.
The fight for dignity and equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual,
and transgender (LGBT) people is reflected in the tireless
dedication of advocates and allies who strive to forge a more
inclusive society.  They have spurred sweeping progress by
changing hearts and minds and by demanding equal treatment --
under our laws, from our courts, and in our politics.  This
month, we recognize all they have done to bring us to this
point, and we recommit to bending the arc of our Nation toward
justice.

     Last year's landmark Supreme Court decision guaranteeing
marriage equality in all 50 States was a historic victory for
LGBT Americans, ensuring dignity for same-sex couples and
greater equality across State lines.  For every partnership
that was not previously recognized under the law and for
every American who was denied their basic civil rights, this
monumental ruling instilled newfound hope, affirming the belief
that we are all more free when we are treated as equals.

     LGBT individuals deserve to know their country stands
beside them.  That is why my Administration is striving to
better understand the needs of LGBT adults and to provide
affordable, welcoming, and supportive housing to aging LGBT
Americans.  It is also why we oppose subjecting minors to the
harmful practice of conversion therapy, and why we are
continuing to promote equality and foster safe and supportive
learning environments for all students.  We remain committed to
addressing health disparities in the LGBT community -- gay
and bisexual men and transgender women of color are at a
particularly high risk for HIV, and we have worked to strengthen
our National HIV/AIDS Strategy to reduce new infections,
increase access to care, and improve health outcomes for people
living with HIV.

     Despite the extraordinary progress of the past few years,
LGBT Americans still face discrimination simply for being who
they are.  I signed an Executive Order in 2014 that prohibits
discrimination against Federal employees and contractors on the
basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.  I urge the
Congress to enact legislation that builds upon the progress we
have made, because no one should live in fear of losing their
job simply because of who they are or who they love.  And
our commitment to combatting discrimination against the LGBT
community does not stop at our borders:  Advancing the fair

page1image25000

treatment of all people has long been a cornerstone of American
diplomacy, and we have made defending and promoting the human
rights of LGBT individuals a priority in our engagement across
the globe.  In line with America's commitment to the notion that
all people should be treated fairly and with respect, champions
of this cause at home and abroad are upholding the simple truth
that LGBT rights are human rights.

     There remains much work to do to extend the promise of our
country to every American, but because of the acts of courage of
the millions who came out and spoke out to demand justice and of
those who quietly toiled and pushed for progress, our Nation has
made great strides in recognizing what these brave individuals
long knew to be true in their hearts -- that love is love and
that no person should be judged by anything but the content of
their character.  During Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
Pride Month, as Americans wave their flags of pride high and
march boldly forward in parades and demonstrations, let us
celebrate how far we have come and reaffirm our steadfast
belief in the equal dignity of all Americans.

     NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the
United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested
in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States,
do hereby proclaim June 2016 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and
Transgender Pride Month.  I call upon the people of the
United States to eliminate prejudice everywhere it exists,
and to celebrate the great diversity of the American people.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this
thirty-first day of May, in the year of our Lord
two thousand sixteen, and of the Independence of the
United States of America the two hundred and fortieth.

BARACK OBAMA

### 

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

Image: Screenshot via The White House/YouTube

 

Related Topics:
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.

News

‘Assassination of Political Rivals as an Official Act’: AOC Warns Take Trump ‘Seriously’

Published

10 hours ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

Democratic U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is responding to Thursday’s U.S. Supreme Court hearing on Donald Trump’s claim he has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution because he was a U.S. president, and she delivered a strong warning in response.

Trump’s attorney argued before the nation’s highest court that the ex-president could have ordered the assassination of a political rival and not face criminal prosecution unless he was first impeached by the House of Representatives and then convicted by the Senate.

But even then, Trump attorney John Sauer argued, if assassinating his political rival were done as an “official act,” he would be automatically immune from all prosecution.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, presenting the hypothetical, expressed, “there are some things that are so fundamentally evil that they have to be protected against.”

RELATED: Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

“If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person, and he orders the military, or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?” she asked.

“It would depend on the hypothetical, but we can see that could well be an official act,” Trump attorney Sauer quickly replied.

Sauer later claimed that if a president ordered the U.S. military to wage a coup, he could also be immune from prosecution, again, if it were an “official act.”

The Atlantic’s Tom Nichols, a retired U.S. Naval War College professor and an expert on Russia, nuclear weapons, and national security affairs, was quick to poke a large hole in that hypothetical.

“If the president suspends the Senate, you can’t prosecute him because it’s not an official act until the Senate impeaches …. Uh oh,” he declared.

RELATED: Justices Slam Trump Lawyer: ‘Why Is It the President Would Not Be Required to Follow the Law?’

U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez blasted the Trump team.

“The assassination of political rivals as an official act,” the New York Democrat wrote.

“Understand what the Trump team is arguing for here. Take it seriously and at face value,” she said, issuing a warning: “This is not a game.”

Marc Elias, who has been an attorney to top Democrats and the Democratic National Committee, remarked, “I am in shock that a lawyer stood in the U.S Supreme Court and said that a president could assassinate his political opponent and it would be immune as ‘an official act.’ I am in despair that several Justices seemed to think this answer made perfect sense.”

CNN legal analyst Norm Eisen, a former U.S. Ambassador and White House Special Counsel for Ethics and Government Reform under President Barack Obama, boiled it down: “Trump is seeking dictatorial powers.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘They Will Have Thugs?’: Lara Trump’s Claim RNC Will ‘Physically Handle the Ballots’ Stuns

 

Continue Reading

News

Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

Published

13 hours ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

Legal experts appeared somewhat pleased during the first half of the Supreme Court’s historic hearing on Donald Trump’s claim he has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution because he was the President of the United States, as the justice appeared unwilling to accept that claim, but were stunned later when the right-wing justices questioned the U.S. Dept. of Justice’s attorney. Many experts are suggesting the ex-president may have won at least a part of the day, and some are expressing concern about the future of American democracy.

“Former President Trump seems likely to win at least a partial victory from the Supreme Court in his effort to avoid prosecution for his role in Jan. 6,” Axios reports. “A definitive ruling against Trump — a clear rejection of his theory of immunity that would allow his Jan. 6 trial to promptly resume — seemed to be the least likely outcome.”

The most likely outcome “might be for the high court to punt, perhaps kicking the case back to lower courts for more nuanced hearings. That would still be a victory for Trump, who has sought first and foremost to delay a trial in the Jan. 6 case until after Inauguration Day in 2025.”

Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern, who covers the courts and the law, noted: “This did NOT go very well [for Special Counsel] Jack Smith’s team. Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh think Trump’s Jan. 6 prosecution is unconstitutional. Maybe Gorsuch too. Roberts is skeptical of the charges. Barrett is more amenable to Smith but still wants some immunity.”

READ MORE: ‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act

Civil rights attorney and Tufts University professor Matthew Segal, responding to Stern’s remarks, commented: “If this is true, and if Trump becomes president again, there is likely no limit to the harm he’d be willing to cause — to the country, and to specific individuals — under the aegis of this immunity.”

Noted foreign policy, national security and political affairs analyst and commentator David Rothkopf observed: “Feels like the court is leaning toward creating new immunity protections for a president. It’s amazing. We’re watching the Constitution be rewritten in front of our eyes in real time.”

“Frog in boiling water alert,” warned Ian Bassin, a former Associate White House Counsel under President Barack Obama. “Who could have imagined 8 years ago that in the Trump era the Supreme Court would be considering whether a president should be above the law for assassinating opponents or ordering a military coup and that *at least* four justices might agree.”

NYU professor of law Melissa Murray responded to Bassin: “We are normalizing authoritarianism.”

Trump’s attorney, John Sauer, argued before the Supreme Court justices that if Trump had a political rival assassinated, he could only be prosecuted if he had first been impeach by the U.S. House of Representatives then convicted by the U.S. Senate.

During oral arguments Thursday, MSNBC host Chris Hayes commented on social media, “Something that drives me a little insane, I’ll admit, is that Trump’s OWN LAWYERS at his impeachment told the Senators to vote not to convict him BECAUSE he could be prosecuted if it came to that. Now they’re arguing that the only way he could be prosecuted is if they convicted.”

READ MORE: Biden Campaign Hammers Trump Over Infamous COVID Comment

Attorney and former FBI agent Asha Rangappa warned, “It’s worth highlighting that Trump’s lawyers are setting up another argument for a second Trump presidency: Criminal laws don’t apply to the President unless they specifically say so…this lays the groundwork for saying (in the future) he can’t be impeached for conduct he can’t be prosecuted for.”

But NYU and Harvard professor of law Ryan Goodman shared a different perspective.

“Due to Trump attorney’s concessions in Supreme Court oral argument, there’s now a very clear path for DOJ’s case to go forward. It’d be a travesty for Justices to delay matters further. Justice Amy Coney Barrett got Trump attorney to concede core allegations are private acts.”

NYU professor of history Ruth Ben-Ghiat, an expert scholar on authoritarians, fascism, and democracy concluded, “Folks, whatever the Court does, having this case heard and the idea of having immunity for a military coup taken seriously by being debated is a big victory in the information war that MAGA and allies wage alongside legal battles. Authoritarians specialize in normalizing extreme ideas and and involves giving them a respected platform.”

The Nation’s justice correspondent Elie Mystal offered up a prediction: “Court doesn’t come back till May 9th which will be a decision day. But I think they won’t decide *this* case until July 3rd for max delay. And that decision will be 5-4 to remand the case back to DC, for additional delay.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

Continue Reading

News

Justices Slam Trump Lawyer: ‘Why Is It the President Would Not Be Required to Follow the Law?’

Published

15 hours ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court hearing Donald Trump’s claim of absolute immunity early on appeared at best skeptical, were able to get his attorney to admit personal criminal acts can be prosecuted, appeared to skewer his argument a president must be impeached and convicted before he can be criminally prosecuted, and peppered him with questions exposing what some experts see is the apparent weakness of his case.

Legal experts appeared to believe, based on the Justices’ questions and statements, Trump will lose his claim of absolute presidential immunity, and may remand the case back to the lower court that already ruled against him, but these observations came during Justices’ questioning of Trump attorney John Sauer, and before they questioned the U.S. Dept. of Justice’s Michael Dreeben.

“I can say with reasonable confidence that if you’re arguing a case in the Supreme Court of the United States and Justices Alito and Sotomayor are tag-teaming you, you are going to lose,” noted attorney George Conway, who has argued a case before the nation’s highest court and obtained a unanimous decision.

But some are also warning that the justices will delay so Special Counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump will not take place before the November election.

READ MORE: ‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act

“This argument still has a ways to go,” observed UCLA professor of law Rick Hasen, one of the top election law scholars in the county. “But it is easy to see the Court (1) siding against Trump on the merits but (2) in a way that requires further proceedings that easily push this case past the election (to a point where Trump could end this prosecution if elected).”

The Economist’s Supreme Court reporter Steven Mazie appeared to agree: “So, big picture: the (already slim) chances of Jack Smith actually getting his 2020 election-subversion case in front of a jury before the 2024 election are dwindling before our eyes.”

One of the most stunning lines of questioning came from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who said, “If someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority, could go into Office knowing that there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes. I’m trying to understand what the disincentive is, from turning the Oval Office into, you know, the seat of criminal activity in this country.”

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

She also warned, “If the potential for criminal liability is taken off the table, wouldn’t there be a significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit crimes with abandon while they’re in office? It’s right now the fact that we’re having this debate because, OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] has said that presidents might be prosecuted. Presidents, from the beginning of time have understood that that’s a possibility. That might be what has kept this office from turning into the kind of crime center that I’m envisioning, but once we say, ‘no criminal liability, Mr. President, you can do whatever you want,’ I’m worried that we would have a worse problem than the problem of the president feeling constrained to follow the law while he’s in office.”

“Why is it as a matter of theory,” Justice Jackson said, “and I’m hoping you can sort of zoom way out here, that the president would not be required to follow the law when he is performing his official acts?”

“So,” she added later, “I guess I don’t understand why Congress in every criminal statute would have to say and the President is included. I thought that was the sort of background understanding that if they’re enacting a generally applicable criminal statute, it applies to the President just like everyone else.”

Another critical moment came when Justice Elena Kagan asked, “If a president sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary, is that immune?”

Professor of law Jennifer Taub observed, “This is truly a remarkable moment. A former U.S. president is at his criminal trial in New York, while at the same time the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing his lawyer’s argument that he should be immune from prosecution in an entirely different federal criminal case.”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Blood on Your Hands’: Tennessee Republicans OK Arming Teachers After Deadly School Shooting

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.