-
The Letter Q Will Harm Democrats
I watched the New York-based Pride Parade live streamed. The parade is a major event in NYC, attended by well over one million people. Today, eleven years after Obergefell v. Hodges legalized same-sex marriage, the movement that once celebrated equality alongside most Democrats looks very different. The near-complete embrace of trans rights as seen in the parade, especially as it affects children, will likely harm the Democratic Party in coming elections. FYI, I’ll use the word “gay” as shorthand here for the various constructions, the most complete of which is the unhandy LGBTQQIP2SAA+.
One of the most noticeable changes in the Pride Parade was the replacement of the once-ubiquitous rainbow flag with the “trans flag,” adding pink, brown, white, and black. Trans people were present in large numbers, had their own floats, and were noticeably name-checked by most of the speakers and signs I saw. As in years before, Democratic politicians were also quite visible. But this year the senior pol, Chuck Schumer (D-NY), was booed. Some in the crowd turned their backs on him, and when the parade paused, they shouted out about how he did not support trans rights. Chuck yelled back he was the first major politician to ever attend a Pride Parade, back in the 90’s. Meanwhile, all-in trans modern supporters Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Congresswoman AOC (D-NY) got some of the biggest applause of the day.
In Gallup polls from 1996 only about a third of Americans supported same-sex marriage. But by the mid-2010s, the figure had flipped and remained about two-thirds into the 2020s. This change culminated in the 2015 Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. In 2024 the Republican Party even removed opposition to marriage equality from its platform. Importantly, the Court ruling followed—not preceded—the broader cultural shift. The emphasis that led to acceptance of gay rights was driven by several factors, key among which was the emphasis on marriage involving consenting adults, many of whom were already cohabitating in various statuses. Advocacy focused on the universal human rights already part of American law and society, such as the right to work, to own property jointly, and so on, nothing more than asking people accept someone else’s private life. It did not include sexual rights for children.
Then something happened concurrent with the first election of Donald Trump. Where it once was sufficient to support basic rights, the Pride Parade started to include overt anti-Trump messages. Signs started to read “Trans rights are human rights” and the new flag was debuted. Far from “celebrating victory, defending the gains, and staying vigilant while winding down as a movement that had achieved its core objectives,” many gay groups did the opposite. They radicalized. Democrats increasingly viewed gay activism as an important component of their electoral coalition. The letter Q and the term queer came to symbolize the idea that one’s sexuality was a political act. In the 2016 presidential election, gay voters embraced Hillary Clinton, promoting irrational fears as bizarre as Trump endorsing imprisoning gays in concentration camps. This voting pattern reflected a broader social shift, where identity-based politics became increasingly central to how one voted. The Democrats took full advantage of this, fanning the flames further in the next election cycle with careful allotments by gender identity (as well as race, disability, etc.) throughout the Biden administration, especially in the military.
The move from basic rights to gender identity made things much more complex as Trump took office a second time. The gay rights movement prior to Obergefell v. Hodges demanded equality and mutual respect. No one’s straight life would change when gay marriage became legal. But then the shift started toward children, and the political advantage Democrats enjoyed because the majority of American supported same sex marriage began to fail. They advocated that gender? sex? was no longer biology, it was an undesired societal construct. Medical schools began teaching newspeak like “chest-feeding” instead of “breastfeeding,” “birthing parent” for “mother,” and “person with a uterus” instead of simply “woman.” Many libraries became repositories of sexual education, often aimed at elementary-age kids “considering” becoming trans.
Divas in drag became a library staple in progressive areas. Teachers at some schools were expected to morph into gender coaches for those same kids, and rules were made that allowed schools in some areas to keep all this from parents, no matter how young the child. Schools in general also took the lead in transitioning to all-sex toilets, with biological boys being allowed to change in front of girls whose opinion of this was never considered. It required a Supreme Court decision to allow states to keep biological boys out of girl’s sports. Quickly evolved medical standards saw doctors encouraged to perform “gender-affirming care” for pre-pubescents who were supposed to be experiencing gender dysphoria at an age when they likely could not correctly spell the term. This care, often called “support,” included things sometimes irreversible such as chemical puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgical interventions. Parental involvement varied down to zero.
Democrats, greedy for votes, supported this all as received wisdom. No debate was allowed. Opponents were shouted down and canceled, called bigots and fascists, labeled homophobic. Even the author of many young voters’ childhood favorite books, J.K. Rowling, was ostracized because she did not support trans rights the woke way. Democrats intend to take this way of thinking into the midterms and the next presidential election. It is very unclear that is a good idea.
In one post-election survey, cultural issues, including transgender issues, mattered more to swing voters than even immigration and inflation. Reality also plays a part. Predictions that a second Trump administration would seek to overturn same-sex marriage have not materialized, despite a conservative Court. Instead, his Secretary of the Treasury is a married gay man with kids. Republican candidates have improved their messaging, focusing on education policy and parental rights, framing the issue as oversight and consent rather than identity or discrimination. In fact, the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County held that Title VII protects gay and transgender workers against discrimination at work, growing gay rights. Changes Trump made have negatively affected trans people in the military, but never drove things broadly back toward Clinton’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” days.
Public attitudes toward gay Americans shifted more rapidly than any other civil rights issue in U.S. history. They are shifting again. The public increasingly appears willing to separate support for gay equality from support for gender-identity activism. Whether Democrats recognize the distinction, that voters are sensing overreach, is an important question for the next election.
Copyright © 2024. All rights reserved. The views expressed here are solely those of the author(s) in their private capacity.
You Wanna Help Ed Snowden? Here’s How…
One of the reasons Ed Snowden is not in prison is because he has great lawyers who have been willing to work pro bono on his behalf.I’m no Ed Snowden, but one of the reasons I am able to write this blog is because I had great lawyers in my fight against the State Department who were willing to work pro bono on my behalf.
The one thing Snowden and I do really have in common is that we are represented by the same group of lawyers, the men and women at the Government Accountability Project (GAP) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The ACLU can always use a financial hand, but today’s request for help is aimed specifically at the Government Accountability Project.
The Government Accountability Project’s office which works specifically on national security whistleblower cases and represents clients who cannot afford legal fees for free, is facing a funding crisis. You can imagine the legal efforts that have been necessary to help Snowden, Tom Drake, John Kiriakou, Bill Binney (and me) through sometimes years of government efforts to silence them.
The government has lots of money and resources; whistleblowers have only the Government Accountability Project.
So here it is: please go to the Government Accountability Project GoFundMe page and give something.
They have a group lined up to offer matching donations, so even a small contribution doubles itself automatically. Your donation is tax-deductible in the U.S. You can donate anonymously.
The next whistleblower who will change history is out there, sitting in some government office, wondering if s/he will be alone when it is time to act on conscience and tell you the kind of things only someone inside the system can know. If you read this blog, I know you want to help him or her. Now, there is a way.
FYI: I receive no money from any of this. My only association with the Government Accountability Project is as their legal client. They saved me and I’d kneel on broken glass if I thought that would help them continue their work.
Copyright © 2024. All rights reserved. The views expressed here are solely those of the author(s) in their private capacity.
Open Letter to Congress from Federal Whistleblowers: Strengthen Protections
Over the course of the last year or so I have met many men and women who risked their freedom, their careers and their livelihoods to expose government waste, fraud, unconstitutional domestic spying, torture and more– “blowing the whistle” as it has come to be known.Instead of talking about what is a whistleblower, maybe it is better to say why is a whistleblower. Some easy points: No one intends to do this, starts out with a plan, hides among unsuspecting bureaucrats for say 15-20 years waiting for the right moment to tear down the wall. No gray ponytails, no earrings or Grateful Dead tattoos among us. We’ve heard of Anonymous in the same way we’ve heard of Lady Gaga but don’t know either well.
We’re made. We’re made by what the government does, and what we witness. If government did what the founders expected it to do– public service– we would not be here, like the mushrooms that don’t pop up on the lawn. Unfortunately, it’ll be awhile before that happens.
The thing is, there should be more of us and not simply for the cheap reveal that the government does lots of naughty things. It probably does, but the reasons why there should be more whistleblowers is because so much of what we see is seen by so many. You have a right to know how your tax money is being spent. To allow more people to stand up and tell the public what is really going on inside government, whistleblowers need to be protected. There need to be meaningful protections for conscientious truth tellers in government. Otherwise you– the people– will know less and less about what your government really does behind closed doors, just the way the government would like things to be. Nice and quiet, nothing to see here, move along and enjoy your Hulu.
That is where this Open Letter from whistleblowers on the WPEA comes in. While Congress has provided credible rights for private sector whistleblowers, rights for government workers are weak.
Take a moment to read through the Letter, and then forward it to your Congressperson.
If you’d like to learn more about or donate to organizations that work to protect whistleblowers, both the Government Accountability Project (GAP) and the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) are excellent places. I personally owe much to both groups for protecting me. While GAP and POGO support this letter, it is organized by whistleblowers Evy Brown and David Pardo.
Bonus: Since I published the letter above, US Marine Corps whistleblower Franz Gayl has also signed.
Copyright © 2024. All rights reserved. The views expressed here are solely those of the author(s) in their private capacity.
Interview: Talking Back to Power
I joined Jess Radack of the Government Accountability Project (GAP) on the Alyona Show to talk about the government’s war on whistleblowers, how free speech may be an export item for the US, but is not wanted at home when it criticizes our own government.
(If the video is not showing above, please follow this link to view it)
Copyright © 2024. All rights reserved. The views expressed here are solely those of the author(s) in their private capacity.
Brush-Back Pitch: Special Counsel Takes on FDA over Email
The war between the Government, which claims it is free to do whatever it wants, and its own employees, who continue to insist their duty is to the People, not to their bosses, rages. Here’s another skirmish.
The Food and Drug Administration secretly monitored the private e-mail accounts of six of its own scientists and doctors who had warned Congress and the White House that medical devices they were reviewing were approved or pushed toward approval despite safety concerns. Among the communications, made on agency computers, were e-mails the employees wrote to the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), which reviews disclosures about government wrongdoing and retaliation against those who report it (Full disclosure: The Government Accountability Project has filed a complaint with the OSC on my behalf against my employer, the Department of State, claiming State’s actions against me are retaliation for the book I wrote critical of their actions n Iraq).
On Wednesday, attorneys for the employees and two prominent Republican lawmakers asked the special counsel to investigate whether the employees’ communications with the office, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the inspector general that oversees FDA operations were protected under federal whistleblower laws. The attorneys and lawmakers say the e-mails were confidential and should not have been intercepted.
The idea is that certain communications are de facto private, even if made on a government or company computer. The message, not the tool used, controls.
“The confidentiality of these communications was broken,” said Stephen M. Kohn of the National Whistleblowers Center, whose firm is representing the plaintiffs. “As part of their official duties, they have the right to disclose confidential concerns. Employees throughout the government can work on these matters on paid time.”
The FDA tried but failed to have criminal charges brought against the whistleblowers for disclosing sensitive business information. The agency fired or harrassed the others.
Special Counsel Carolyn Lerner warned against government monitoring of email communications with her office.
One hopes that the State Department is following the FDA case and not monitoring its own employees’ emails to their lawyers, the OSC or Congress, especially this time of year when Congress has budget requests in front of it. State’s monitoring of its own employees’ emails as a retaliatory tactic also flies in the face of all the barking Hillary does about internet freedom in China and Iran. Perhaps if the State Department had an Inspector General to review such matters internally things would be better. Awkward!
Copyright © 2024. All rights reserved. The views expressed here are solely those of the author(s) in their private capacity.
Dark Days for Government Whistleblowers
Antiwar.com has an excellent article online now about Thomas Drake (right), a former NSA employee who exposed government spying on Americans, lost his job and almost went to jail over the trumped up charges that followed. Drake ultimately was only convicted of a single misdemeanor, but saw his career and life almost destroyed.Drake, reminds Antiwar.com, is not alone:
Today, Drake says that 9/11 exposed all of the secrecy and cynicism and venal impulses of a government he once defended and believed in. Though not outwardly analogous, his case is not so different from other post-9/11 whistleblowers and truth-tellers, like Anthony Shaffer or Peter Van Buren, who both lost their security clearances, their government careers sidelined as though they were suddenly “enemies of the state.”
Drake was vindicated by the efforts of the Government Accountability Project, a powerful organization determined not to see the abuse of authority.
“At one point they said what Tom had done was endangering soldiers’ lives,” said Jesselyn Radack, an attorney for the Washington DC-based Government Accountability Project, which defended Drake during the prosecution and has a long list of whistleblower clients (Radack is also a whistleblower, having exposed the FBI of committing ethics violations – and a cover-up – when it interrogated American John Walker Lindh without a lawyer present in 2001).
“They want to tag anyone who questions anything that happens as being unpatriotic. They are using laws that were meant to go after spies to go after whistleblowers. We have someone here who is trying to serve his country and blows the whistle on government illegality,” she said. “For the prosecution to say he is endangering lives is just offensive.
The entire article is sobering but important reading. See Antiwar.com for more.
Copyright © 2024. All rights reserved. The views expressed here are solely those of the author(s) in their private capacity.
Buy Peter’s Books on Amazon!
