Welcome the Alien. Protect the LGBT refugees and asylum seekers Story of my life in three major articles

Welcome the Alien. Protect the LGBT refugees and asylum seekers Story of my life in three major articles

For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me

drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in <<<:Matthew 25:35
>>>

This is the story of my life in just two important articles that i will utilize by the power of technology, the internet and the advocacy work of the UNHCR( United Nation refugee agency) to inspire and rescue million LGBT asylum seekers, refugees, forced displaced persons, internal displaced, LGBT stateless persons and many more, it is still a tough journey with health problem,but i hope to accomplish my mission on earth before i depart from this imperfect world forever.

UNHCR – UNHCR helps gay Congolese rejected by his mother find a new home http://www.unhcr.org/54905cf39.html

From Congo to Castro UNHCR Resettles Persecuted LGBTI Activist in the U.S.A. http://t.co/XX82sdMvNI

Le Haut Commissariat aux Réfugiés aide un gay congolais à partir pour San Francisco | Yagg http://t.co/yAjYY3phJP

United Nations Makes History on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

30 June 2016, at 2.30 pm Geneva time we expect the vote on the resolution entitled “Protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity”. A copy is attached. It has the number “A/HRC/32/L.2/Rev.1”. You will have seen reference by ARC earlier today to the joint statement of 628 NGOs from 151 countries that was delivered at the UN on Monday. You can watch the statement being read here: http://ilga.org/628-ngos-sogi-independent-expert/. Those of us here in Geneva are very aware that we are only one tiny part of an amazing group around the world helping this to happen. Thank you to everybody who is involved in whatever way. We are humbled by the efforts of people in many different corners of our planet.

the Resolution A/HRC/32/L.2/Rev.1 on the protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity that establishes an Independent Expert on this issue. This is a major achievement at the HRC!

 

The resolution has been adopted after 3 hours of discussion. It has enjoyed the co-sponsorship of 47 States.

 

The Resolution has passed by a vote of 23 States in favour, 18 against, 6 abstained. Find attached the results of the vote.

 

Before voting for the resolution Saudi Arabia requested a no-action motion that was rejected by 15 in favour – 22 against – 9 abstentions.

 

The Resolution has been passed with the following amendments suggested by Pakistan: L. 73 to L.79

A/HRC/32/L.73, A/HRC/32/L.74, A/HRC/32/L.75, A/HRC/32/L.76, A/HRC/32/L.77, A/HRC/32/L.78, A/HRC/32/L.79

The following amendments were rejected: A/HRC/32/L.71, A/HRC/32/L.72, A/HRC/32/L.80, A/HRC/32/L.81

 

Separate votes were requested on the title of the Resolution, PP4, OP 2 and OP 3-7 and after a vote all the paragraphs were retained.

 

In the final vote all States that abstained provided an explanation of vote in favour of SOGI rights but informed that they were not ready to support the establishment of a mandate.  Unfortunately some States that voted against informed that they will not cooperate with the mandate holder.

 

The final resolution is not yet available but I can send it to you once it has been uploaded on the HRC extranet.

This is a major achievement coinciding with the 10th anniversary of the HRC that will ensure not only the establishment of the mandate but also that SOGI rights are discusses annually at the HRC!

 

1. Deleting “based on Sexual Orientation, and Gender Identity” from the title and replacing with due to any basis such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status

2. Deleting references to the previous SOGI resolutions of the HRC, and instead recalling all Human Rights Council resolutions relevant to protection against violence and discrimination  due to any basis such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status

3. A new preambular paragraph stressing the need to maintain joint ownership of the international human rights agenda and to consider human rights issues in an objective and non-confrontational manner.

4. A new preambular paragraph undertaking to support the Human Rights Council’s broad and balanced agenda, and to strengthen the mechanisms addressing issues of importance, including fighting racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, in all their forms.

5. A new preambular paragraph reiterating the importance of respecting regional, cultural and religious value systems as well as particularities in considering human rights issues.

6. A new preambular paragraph underlining that fundamental importance of respecting the relevant domestic debates at the national level on matters associated with historical, cultural, social and religious sensitivities

7. A new preambular paragraph deploring the use of external pressures and coercive measures against States, particularly developing countries, including through the use and threat of use of economic sanctions and/or application of conditionality on official development assistance, with the aim of influencing the relevant domestic debates and decision making processes at the national level

8. A new preambular paragraph expressing concern by any attempt to undermine the international human rights system by seeking to impose concepts or notions pertaining to social matters, including private individual conduct, that fall outside the internationally agreed human rights legal framework, taking into account that such attempts constitute an expression of disregard for the universality of human rights

9. A new preambular paragraph underlining that this resolution should be implemented while ensuring respect for the sovereign right of each country as well as its national laws, development priorities, the various religious and ethical values and cultural backgrounds of its people and should also be in full conformity with universally recognized international human rights.

10.  Deleting “because of their Sexual Orientation, and Gender Identity” from OP2  (context is deploring violence and discrimination) and replacing with due to any basis such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status

11. To delete the establishment of an Independent Expert (ie Op 3, 4, 5 ,6, 7 and 8) and replace with a request for a report from the High Commissioner on protection of all individuals against violence and discrimination committed because of their race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status with a focus on major challenges and best practices in this regard.

<L.2 Rev1 – SOGI resolution.docx>

<L.71 – 1st amendment.docx>

<L.72 – 2nd amendment.docx>

<L.73 – 3rd amendment.docx>

<L.74 – 4th amendment.docx>

<L.75 – 5th amendment.docx>

<L.76 – 6th amendment.docx>

<L.77 – 7th amendment.docx>

<L.78 – 8th amendment.docx>

<L.79 – 9th amendment.docx>

<L.80 – 10th amendment.docx>

<L.81 – 11th amendment.docx>

Results of the vote

Voting in favor of the resolution:
Albania, Belgium, Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Georgia, Germany, Latvia, Macedonia, Mexico, Mongolia, Netherlands, Panama, Paraguay, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Slovenia, Switzerland, UK, Venezuela, Viet Nam

Voting against the resolution:
Algeria, Bangladesh, Burundi, China, Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Maldives, Morocco, Nigeria, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Togo, United Arab Emirates

Abstaining on the resolution:
Botswana, Ghana, India, Namibia, Philippines, South Africa

Results of the voteVoting in favor of Source: United Nations Makes History on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

Pope says Christians should apologize to gay people – CNN

I am so happy that the Pope is beginning to address this issue of religion being used as a defense mechanism in order to discriminate against gays people and commit all form of acts of violence against them.

CNNPope says Christians should apologize to gay peopleCNNAboard the Papal Plane (CNN) Pope Francis said Sunday that Christians owe apologies to gays and others who have been offended or exploited b…

Source: Pope says Christians should apologize to gay people – CNN

Cardinal Marx: Catholic Church Should “Apologize to Gay Community” – OnePeterFive

BY STEVE SKOJEC ON JUNE 24, 2016 Cardinal Reinhard Marx is the head of the German bishops conference and  a member of the council of nine cardinals who act as Pope Francis’ closest advisers.

One of Pope Francis’ leading advisors has declared that the Catholic Church should publicly apologize to homosexuals for what he called its scandalous and terrible treatment of them.

The comments by German Cardinal Reinhard Marx, one of the council of nine cardinals chosen by Pope Francis to advise him, were reported in the Irish Times June 23.

“The history of homosexuals in our societies is very bad because we’ve done a lot to marginalize [them],” he said, adding that as a Church and as a society “we’ve also to say ‘sorry, sorry.’”

The Cardinal, who is the Archbishop of Munich and Freising, said that up until “very recently” the Catholic Church had been “very negative about gay people,” adding that “it was a scandal and terrible.”

It was almost three years ago when Pope Francis uttered his famous statement “Who am I to judge” regarding homosexuality that signified to many a new direction they thought the Pope intended to move the Church on the topics of marriage and sexuality.

Cardinal Marx suggested in the interview that the Church ought to look favorably on same-sex relationships, but would not go as far as calling those relationships “marriage.”

“We have to respect the decisions of people. We have to respect also, as I said in the first synod on the family — some were shocked, but I think it’s normal — you cannot say that a relationship between a man and a man, and they are faithful, [that] that is nothing, that has no worth,” he said.

He said it was up to the state “to make regulations for homosexuals so they have equal rights or nearly equal . . . but marriage is another point,” adding that the state “has to regulate these partnerships and to bring them into a just position, and we as church cannot be against it.”

Because of its respect for the natural and moral order established by the Divine Creator, the Catholic Church teaches that homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered” since they are “contrary to the natural law” in that they “close the sexual act to the gift of life.”

“They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved,” the Catechism of the Catholic Church states.

The Church, while recognizing the homosexual inclination itself as “objectively disordered,” nevertheless teaches that men and woman who experience same-sex attraction must be “accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity,” adding that “every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”

St. Peter Damian, an 11th century Italian Catholic reformer and a Doctor of the Church, argued in his day that for the Church to be the salt of the earth and a light to the world, she must uncompromisingly preach the whole truth about God’s plan for sexuality and how terrible are the consequences, both temporal and eternal, to those who engage in the “unnatural sexual practices” of homosexuality, masturbation, and contraception.

Following Scripture and the Tradition of the Church, Damian described homosexuality in his famous Book of Gomorrah as a “diabolical” corruption of God’s plan for sexuality between a man and a woman. It is a direct assault against God. He wrote that homosexuality must not only be not tolerated, but it must be condemned and stamped out, describing it as a “lethal wound festering in the very body of the holy Church.”

“This vice [of same-sex activity] is the death of bodies, the destruction of souls, pollutes the flesh, extinguishes the light of the intellect, expels the Holy Spirit from the temple of the human heart, introduces the diabolical inciter of lust, throws into confusion, and removes the truth completely from the deceived mind…It opens up hell and closes the door of paradise…It cuts off a member of the Church and casts him into the voracious conflagration of raging Gehenna.”

“For it is this which violates sobriety, kills modesty, slays chastity. It butchers virginity with the sword of a most filthy contagion. It befouls everything, it stains everything, it pollutes everything, and for itself it permits nothing pure, nothing foreign to filth, nothing clean,” he wrote.

Cardinal Marx’s statement’s on homosexuality are not the first time he has departed from clear Church teaching. Last year he proposed at the Synod on the Family that it was “unrealistic” to ask those living in adultery to refrain from sexual acts prior to being admitted to the sacrament of Holy Communion.

Source: Cardinal Marx: Catholic Church Should “Apologize to Gay Community” – OnePeterFive

Obama names first national monument to LGBT rights – CNN.com

Obama names first national monument to LGBT rights

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywtvJyXDWkk&feature=share

President Barack Obama announced Friday he was designating the area around the Stonewall Inn in New York City as the country’s first national monument to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights.

“This week I’m designating the Stonewall National Monument as the newest addition to America’s national park system,” Obama said in a video released by the White House on Friday.
“I believe our national parks should reflect the full story of our country — the richness and diversity and uniquely American spirit that has always defined us, that we are stronger than ever. That out of many, we are one,” Obama said.
The White House said the monument would encompass Christopher Park, the Stonewall Inn and the surrounding streets and sidewalks that were the sites of the 1969 Stonewall uprising.
In the early morning of June 28, 1969, a police raid on the Stonewall Inn — a typical occurrence at gay bars in the 1960s — made history when patrons fought back.
After police arrested many Stonewall patrons that morning, people protested outside the bar for weeks afterward, leading to the first march for gay and lesbian rights in July 1969.
Those protests are often credited as a flashpoint for LGBT rights in the United States.
While Obama’s announcement came two days before New York City’s Sunday pride march, which is often celebratory, the attack on the Orlando gay nightclub Pulse that killed 49 people added a somber tone to the announcement.

June is traditionally pride month in many cities around the world, with people turning out for parades and picnics.
While many of those parades have taken on an air of celebration in recent years, both the first parade and the modern gay rights movement can be traced back to the 1969 uprising at the Stonewall Inn.
Stonewall Inn granted NYC landmark status
“The Stonewall uprising, led primarily by people of color and people of transgender experience, was a watershed moment in our nation’s history, sparking what many call the beginning of modern-day LGBT rights movements,” said Wendy Stark, executive director of the Callen-Lorde Community Health Center, which primarily serves New York City’s LGBT community.
“The recognition of Stonewall as a national monument is an important step in recognizing our vibrant past and spotlighting the unique contributions LGBT Americans make to the rich fabric of our nation,” she told CNN.
“In light of the Orlando massacre as well as the daily violence and discrimination our communities still face, it’s never been more important to observe LGBT history in this way,” she said.
Stonewall has remained a gathering place for the LGBT rights movement, attracting celebrations after the Supreme Court ruled for same-sex marriage equality and mourners in the aftermath of the Orlando shooting. Protestors marched from Grand Central Terminal to the Stonewall Inn on Sunday to rally against violence toward the LGBT community.
National Park Service turns 100
The National Park Service, which turns 100 this year, has expanded its efforts to include sites that tell the story of the LGBT community and other diverse U.S. communities, park service director Jonathan Jarvis told CNN in April.
The effort includes a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ) Heritage Initiative, launched in 2014, to identify places and events associated with the story of LGBTQ Americans for inclusion in the park service.
Nearly two years ago, the National Parks Conservation Association launched a national effort to identify potential sites for an LGBT monument.
“This site is so perfect, and it really is recognized as the birthplace of civil rights for LGBT people,” said Theresa Pierno, the non-profit’s president and CEO. The LGBT movement “really is a struggle for human rights and civil rights, and it’s a story that needs to be told.”

Post by @stephano93.

Source: Obama names first national monument to LGBT rights – CNN.com

Homeless shelters seeing increase in LGBT youth

ROANOKE (WSLS 10) – Nearly 40% of homeless youth nationwide are LGBT, according to the Williams Institute. Researchers say homeless individuals identifying as gay, lesbian, bi-sexual or trans…

Source: Homeless shelters seeing increase in LGBT youth

Geneva Panel on Violence Against LGBTI Asylum Seekers and Refugees in Detention

The 32nd Regular Session of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) is taking place in Geneva, Switzerland from 13 June – 1 July at the United Nations Palais des Nations. This year, following on from a 2…

Source: Geneva Panel on Violence Against LGBTI Asylum Seekers and Refugees in Detention

Hillary Clinton wins 3 primaries, clinches nomination

Tuesday’s biggest prize, by far, was California, which offered 475 pledged delegates — nearly twice as many as the other states combined.

1) California (475 delegates): Polls have closed, but a winner has not yet been called.

2) New Jersey (126 delegates): Hillary Clinton has been called the winner.

3) New Mexico (34 delegates): Hillary Clinton has been called the winner.

4) Montana (21 delegates): Bernie Sanders has been called the winner.

5) South Dakota (20 delegates): Hillary Clinton has been called the winner.

6) North Dakota (18 delegates): Bernie Sanders has been called the winner.

But California’s import went far beyond those numbers.

It became, in effect, the last battleground of the grinding Democratic contest, a chance for Clinton to punctuate her climb to the nomination with a capstone victory in the nation’s most populous and diverse state — or for Sanders to raise new doubts about her political durability.

Sanders and his supporters had hoped a California victory would send the senator roaring into the party’s convention in Philadelphia with the momentum to reverse Clinton’s lead in pledged delegates and court enough superdelegates — the party’s unbound free agents — to wrestle the nomination away.

Seizing the nomination from the front-runner at this point would be unprecedented in modern times, something Sanders acknowledged Tuesday night in an interview with NBC before the results had rolled in.

“Defying history is what this campaign is about,” Sanders said, though he was vague about his plans going forward.

 

Hillary Clinton wins 3 primaries, splits California delegates with Bernie Sanders, to clinch Democratic Presidential nomination.

Source: Hillary Clinton wins 3 primaries, clinches nomination

The importance of the Equality Act to put an end to discrimination against LGBT people in America

 

 

 

Appeals court refuses to rehear transgender restroom case

If this case reaches the USA Supreme Court, i  hope the USA Supreme Court will make it crystal clear that transgender people can use whichever restroom matches their gender identity because lets me be clear most of transgender women are not attracted to women either they are attracted to men and most of transgender men are not attracted to men so no need to fret or make it a big deal because of religious extremism.

Here is the developpment of this case below :

RICHMOND, Va. — The debate over whether transgender students should be able to use the bathrooms that match their gender identity is likely headed to the U.S. Supreme Court after a federal appeals court refused Tuesday to reconsider a three-judge panel’s ruling on the matter.

11 states sue gov’t over transgender school bathroom rules

The Gloucester County School Board had asked for a review by the full 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals after a three-judge panel said in a 2-1 decision last month that a Virginia high school discriminated against a transgender teen by forbidding him from using the boy’s restroom.

In his dissent of Tuesday’s decision denying the school board’s request for full-court review, Judge Paul V. Niemeyer urged the school board to ask the high court to hear the case, saying the “momentous nature” of the topic “deserves an open road to the Supreme Court.”

“Bodily privacy is historically one of the most basic elements of human dignity and individual freedom. And forcing a person of one biological sex to be exposed to persons of the opposite biological sex profoundly offends this dignity and freedom,” Niemeyer wrote.

David Patrick Corrigan, an attorney for the school board, did not immediately return a message seeking comment on Tuesday.

The case brought by student Gavin Grimm has been closely watched since North Carolina enacted a law last month that bans transgender people from using public restrooms that correspond to their gender identity. Several dueling cases over the law are pending in federal courts in North Carolina.

Gavin Grimm

Gavin Grimm. WTVR

Grimm, who was born female but identifies as male, was allowed to use the boys’ restrooms at the school for several weeks in 2014. But after some parents complained, the school board adopted a policy requiring students to use either the restroom that corresponds with their biological gender or a private, single-stall restroom.

“Now that the Fourth Circuit’s decision is final, I hope my school board will finally do the right thing and let me go back to using the boys’ restroom again,” Grimm said in a statement. “Transgender kids should not have to sue their own school boards just for the ability to use the same restrooms as everyone else.”

Grimm said he started refusing to wear girls’ clothes by age 6 and told his parents he was transgender in April 2014.

Grimm’s parents helped him legally change his name and a psychologist diagnosed him with gender dysphoria, characterized by stress stemming from conflict between one’s gender identity and assigned sex at birth. Grimm began hormone treatment to deepen his voice and give him a more masculine appearance.

White House guidelines on transgender rights at school

School officials told CBS affiliate WTVR they received complaints from dozens of parents in regards to the bathroom issue.

“It shall be the practice of the (Gloucester County Public Schools) to provide male and female restroom and locker room facilities in its schools, and the use of said facilities shall be limited to the corresponding biological genders, and students with gender identity issues shall be provided an alternative private facility,” the school board said in its ruling on the issue.

At that time, the school also built several unisex private restrooms for all students to use.

Grimm said for him, this battle is about much more than just using a certain restroom.

“I’m banned from a gender specific place and it is a big issue for me, this is one way the school is saying, we do not believe you are legitimate, and that is a big deal to me,” he said.

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — The debate over whether transgender students should be able to use the bathrooms that match their gender identity is likely headed to the U.S. Supreme Court after a federal app…

Source: Appeals court refuses to rehear transgender restroom case

How to Save America From Donald Trump | Foreign Policy

How to Save America From Donald Trump

It is clear that the U.S. 2016 presidential campaign will be unlike any other. It will pit the first woman to be a major party’s nominee for the presidency against a man who is, without argument, the least qualified candidate to be president in the country’s history — a man who has embraced hate speech, racism, and misogyny as platform planks of his campaign.

In a moment, I will help you make this choice. But, first, let me talk a little bit about the framing of Donald Trump as a candidate.

Who pays for war
Here are the thoughts of Larry Kirby, a World War II Marine.

Promoted By
I’m not going to spend much time here presenting the case that Trump represents a threat to the U.S. political system and to American values unlike any significant presidential candidate since, perhaps, George Wallace, Alabama’s racist governor who ran in 1968. That case has been made frequently and well elsewhere, most notably and more recently by the estimable and thoughtful Bob Kagan.

Rather, I want to address the issue of how the media has covered Trump and notably why I refer to Trump as I do. No doubt some of his supporters will consider my references to him thus far in this column to be biased. My view is the opposite. My view is if a candidate who runs for president is racist (see: his express views on Mexicans and Muslims here), misogynist (see: his history of disrespecting women here), and is someone who has no experience in government, no experience or understanding of foreign policy, and a business track record that is checkered at best, then objectivity dictates that those with platforms in the media must report and comment on these facts as they are. Donald Trump does not get a pass because he has millions of supporters. Donald Trump does not get a pass because he has millions of supporters. He does not get to argue that the statements he has made are somehow protected from judgment because they are offered in the context of a campaign.

If we rely on honest, unbiased reporting to guide our views on Trump as a candidate, then we are allowing him to be defined by a clear record — one he has created for himself in the public eye. And if we use that record, then it’s impossible not to characterize him, objectively, by his reckless would-be policies and his displays of ignorance and hatefulness, qualities in a president that would be dangerous to America and the world.

It is dishonest to present an impostor as the real thing, a poseur as a statesman, a buffoon who plays to the cheap seats as an artist or an innovator. The great error of the media in its coverage of the 2016 campaign has been and continues to be its attempt to legitimize someone who is inherently — in each and every strand of his DNA — illegitimate.

The examples of Trump’s recklessness — including his failure to understand nuclear policy in Asia, the role of NATO in Europe, and, especially, his lack of understanding as to why Mexico is such a vital friend of the United States — are manifold. Do you feel that past presidents with experience got us into trouble? That’s certainly true. But here’s a cold, hard fact: Those situations would only have been worse with an arrogant, know-nothing, loose cannon like Trump in the Oval Office.

In fact, here’s an interesting thought experiment supporting the case that not just experience but experience in the White House matters to be a successful foreign-policy president. Pick the best foreign-policy presidents of the past century from both parties and then ask yourself, what was the one background factor they all had in common? Go on, try it. Let’s start with a few presidents: George H. W. Bush, Richard Nixon, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Harry Truman, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt. Each had a very high level of experience and regular contact with the White House on foreign-policy issues before he became president. Four of them were vice presidents. One was supreme allied commander. And one was a top official in the Department of the Navy in the days when it was absolutely central to U.S. defense. There is no substitute for high-level experience in or with the White House, and it is the only reliable preparation for a commander in chief and architect of U.S. foreign policy.

It is impossible to know anything about foreign policy or care anything about America’s interests in the world and support a man like Trump. To suggest that just because many in the establishment are corrupt or dysfunctional, therefore, someone from outside the establishment automatically deserves a chance and must be better is a logical folly. The odds are, given that experience matters, the person without experience will be worse. If, as it happens, that person has, throughout his adult life, seemed dedicated to exercising serial bad judgment — in his business affairs, in his associations with mobsters and other dubious characters, in his treatment of women, in his public statements, in his private behavior — then the case that he might be the answer rather than an even worse problem is made even more ridiculous.

So, what is a responsible voter to do when presented with a candidate like this? There are several options, but voting for such a man is clearly not one of them. A vote for Trump is a vote against women, Mexicans, Islam, and America’s national interests.A vote for Trump is a vote against women, Mexicans, Islam, and America’s national interests. If you care about a strong defense, you can’t support a man who does not understand the value of alliances or the dangers posed by retreating behind our borders. If you care about fiscal responsibility, you can’t support a man who advocates for proposals that would bust the U.S. budget. If you support fair trade internationally, you can’t support someone who chose to make among his first acts as a candidate verbal assaults on our most important trading partners.

But deciding not to vote for such a man is not enough. Democracy is not a spectator sport. You cannot opt out. Apathy or inaction has an effect. It strengthens those who act. So, at the very least, you have to actively support whichever opponent he might face that actually has a chance of beating him. In this case, that is Hillary Clinton. Whether you love her or are tepid about her, the only way to actively play a role in stopping Trump — which is, as I view it, a patriotic duty — you must support her. There is no alternative. In fact, if you recognize Trump as the monumental threat he is, you should actively support her campaign — and help her defeat him.

As it happens, Clinton is not just the only viable alternative to Trump. She is an extraordinarily gifted woman who would make an excellent president. She would come to office with more foreign-policy experience than any president since George H. W. Bush (and would be the first secretary of state to become president since the middle of the 19th century … despite the fact that prior secretaries of state-turned-president have included Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, and John Quincy Adams). She has extensive White House knowledge and was an acknowledged thought leader during the presidency of her husband. She has been a leader on a wide array of domestic issues from health care to advocacy for first responders. She showed a great aptitude for management during her tenure as secretary of state, winning widespread respect across a massive, far-flung, complex global organization.

Moreover, since her earliest days as a lawyer and advocate, she has been known and respected for her brilliant mind, her studiousness, her mastery of her brief. She is known to engender great loyalty among her staff. She is a listener, an empowerer, someone who has a reputation for wanting to be told the truth. I have met with her many times and have cultivated this view over years of writing about her and the administrations in which she has served. I can honestly say that she may be the most impressive candidate for president and one of the most impressive public figures I have ever met. If she were running against the best of the Republican Party, she would deserve to win.

But she is not. She is running against a menace who must be stopped.

Trump’s misogyny only underscores one other aspect of this race that is important. Clinton, when elected, will become the first member of America’s majority population to hold its highest office. She will undo nearly two-and-a-half centuries of institutionalized sexism. She will take a step that is essential for American democracy. Because no democracy can be said to be fully functional or truly representative if the majority population — women — are kept from top offices.

Is being a woman reason enough to vote for Clinton? No, gender alone is not enough. But that does not mean it is not a big deal or that it is not every bit as big of a breakthrough for a country with a troubled racial past to elect a black man as president.

In fact, in the midst of this very dark and disturbing campaign year, there is, in fact, a bright prospect. Due to the wisdom of the American people (and the arithmetic of our electoral system … not to mention the odiousness of Trump), Hillary Clinton is likely to be elected the first woman president of the United States in November. We dare not — we must not — take that for granted. But were it to happen, it will produce a watershed in U.S. history that will send an important message to our daughters and sisters and mothers and to all the rest of us. We will have elected a woman president. And we will have done so because she was one of few people in the country best qualified for the office.

Which raises an interesting prospect. In 50 or 100 years from now, when historians look back on this period, with some luck, Trump will be forgotten or seen as an oddity or, better yet, a cautionary tale. But the big story will be that in 2008 American voters elected a black man and that in 2016 they elected a woman. That is to say, in the future, there is a good likelihood that people will look back on the current American electorate and, rather than see the depressing shit show that we lament daily, they will see us as perhaps the most progressive and enlightened in U.S. history.

Of course, that will only happen if voters from both parties have the courage to recognize the unprecedented threat posed by Trump for what it is and see the necessity in taking action against that threat and the manifold benefits of doing so. The action needed is supporting Hillary Clinton to be the first woman to be president of the United States of America — the kind of experienced candidate this country and the world need for the fragile and complex times in which we live.

Author’s note: The views expressed above are my own personal perspectives and are not intended to represent an official position on the part of Foreign Policy nor will they impact in any way the fairness of our coverage going forward.

via How to Save America From Donald Trump | Foreign Policy

Source: How to Save America From Donald Trump | Foreign Policy