One Goes Our Way

We won a big one in the Montana Supreme Court!

Montana Supreme Court upholds injunction blocking law defining sex as binary

KPAX

By: Zach Volheim

Apr 15, 2026

The Montana Supreme Court just delivered a victory for transgender rights.

In a 5-2 ruling, the court upheld a preliminary injunction allowing transgender Montanans to amend birth certificates and driver's licenses to match their gender identity.

The case involves a 2023 law, Senate Bill 458, that defines sex as based on biological sex at birth.

Two transgender women sued, arguing the law forces them to "out" themselves every time they show identification.

One plaintiff described a prolonged traffic stop in which police could not verify her identity because her appearance no longer matched her driver's license issued before the transition.

The court ruled this constitutes sex discrimination under the Montana Constitution, applying strict scrutiny.

This is a big win! And it was a 5 - 2 decision! So it wasn't a squeaker but a sold win!!

The Courthouse News Service didn't mince words...

“Transgender discrimination is, by its very nature, sex discrimination,” Montana Supreme Court Justice Laurie McKinnon wrote on behalf of the majority. “Discrimination based on sex is expressly prohibited under Montana’s unique nondiscrimination clause.”

That follows the U.S. Supreme Court ruling so far. The article goes on to report,

“Transgender discrimination is, by its very nature, sex discrimination,” Montana Supreme Court Justice Laurie McKinnon wrote on behalf of the majority. “Discrimination based on sex is expressly prohibited under Montana’s unique nondiscrimination clause.”

To bad Trump's Supreme Court can't get that into their skulls!

“Our Montana Constitution requires the state to treat individuals with dignity even as it exercises its broad police powers,” McKinnon wrote. “This bold constitutional proposition protects all individuals and does so equally.”

First Amendment!

F**k the 1^st Amendment!

That is what Tennessee legislators just did. You can now be arrested for protesting an anti-LGBTQ+ speaker. Apparently, you can protest all the pro-LGBTQ+ speakers you want... but speak out against an anti-LGBTQ+ speaker, and it’s jail time for you!

Tennessee lawmakers pass ‘Charlie Kirk Act’ targeting students who protest anti-LGBTQ+ speakers

Tennessee lawmakers passed the so-called “Charlie Kirk Act” on Wednesday (15 April), a sweeping bill that could see students and faculty disciplined, or even expelled, for protesting speakers on campus over anti-LGBTQ+ views.

PinkNews

Written by Siân Thompson

April 16, 2026

The legislation would bar Tennessee colleges and universities from restricting invited speakers based on their views, explicitly protecting “opposition to abortion, homosexuality, or transgender behaviour”.

The bill is now headed to Gov. Bill Lee’s desk for signature. Once signed, the policies outlined in the bill will take effect immediately; the rest of the bill’s provisions will take effect on 1 July.

Under the bill, common forms of protest such as walkouts, chanting, or holding signs that obstruct views could be deemed disruptive and punished with probation, suspension, or expulsion.

And then when I see wording like this:

Institutions will also be required to adopt the University of Chicago’s free expression policy, which prioritises open debate over shielding students from harmful or inflammatory rhetoric.

I wonder: who decides what is "harmful or inflammatory rhetoric"?

Protest or disruption? Tennessee’s Charlie Kirk Act raises new questions on campus

WKRN

by: Kelly Milan

Apr 15, 2026 

The Charlie Kirk Act is now on its way to Gov. Bill Lee’s desk after passing along party lines. Supporters frame it as a necessary guardrail for free speech on public college campuses. Critics warn it may do the opposite.

At its core, the legislation targets student behavior during campus events. Under the proposal, students who interrupt invited speakers, whether through walkouts or demonstrations, could face suspension or expulsion.

State Rep. Gino Bulso (R-Brentwood) argues the bill ensures speakers can be heard without interference, calling it a defense of “civil, robust debate” under the First Amendment.

The Charlie Kirk Act is now on its way to Gov. Bill Lee’s desk after passing along party lines. Supporters frame it as a necessary guardrail for free speech on public college campuses. Critics warn it may do the opposite.

At its core, the legislation targets student behavior during campus events. Under the proposal, students who interrupt invited speakers, whether through walkouts or demonstrations, could face suspension or expulsion.

State Rep. Gino Bulso (R-Brentwood) argues the bill ensures speakers can be heard without interference, calling it a defense of “civil, robust debate” under the First Amendment.

This squelches... "abridging the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly"

What makes this bill biased?

“Any attendee or speaker can sue if these uninterrupted disruptions happen and because it requires discipline, a speaker could sue the university if the university doesn’t follow through with punishments,” Shahverdian said. “This opens up the floodgates really to lawsuits, potentially even invites them in.”

They are only targeting protests against anti-LGBTQ+ speakers! I am not a lawyer, but even I can see this bill is targeted, and courts generally hate that. I can imagine a judge’s first question: "What about protests against pro-LGBTQ+ rallies?"

---

What can we do?

First, remember that when they sue, it opens them up to discovery for all correspondence related to the case (except for attorney-client privileged communications). Furthermore, they carry the burden of proof to show that a disruption was "substantial."

Second, challenge the law for being too vague!

Third, counter-sue! Sue them for infringing on your Constitutional First Amendment rights and for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Tie them up in court. This tactic goes back to the 1950s and 60s with the Greensboro Four and the lunch counter sit-ins, where the strategy of institutional saturation was used to overwhelm the system.

If they sue 100 protesters, and those protesters counter-sue for $100,000 each, that is $10 million in play. If a speaker sues 100 people, they have to prove individually what each person did. They will have to get on the stand and swear under oath exactly how one specific person—not the group, but that individual—disrupted the speech. By counter-suing, protesters shift the narrative: "The government and the speaker are weaponizing the law to bankrupt students."

The legislators knew we could use Anti-SLAPP laws, so the Republicans added text specifically stating that actions brought under this act are not subject to the Tennessee Public Participation Act (TPPA). They stacked the deck against us.

But we don’t need the TPPA; we can fight back with the full weight of the Constitution!

---

"You don't know what privilege is until you have to fight for it in court."

Vengeance Is Mine, Saith Trump!

Everyone knows, don't cross Trump!

Amid quarrel with pope, Trump strips Miami charity of funding to house migrant kids 

The Miami Herald 

By Carol Marbin Miller and Syra Ortiz Blanes

April 15, 2026

The Trump administration has abruptly canceled an $11 million contract with Catholic Charities to shelter and care for migrant children who enter the U.S. alone, ending a relationship between the Catholic Church and the U.S. government dating back to the first arrivals of Cuban exiles in South Florida. The development comes amid rising tensions between the administration and American Catholics over President Donald Trump’s heated criticism of the Vatican’s first American pope, Leo XIV. The pontiff has made opposition to the U.S. war with Iran, as well as concern for the welfare of migrants, a cornerstone of his ministry.

[...]

 “The U.S. government has abruptly decided to end more than 60 years of relationship with Catholic Charities in the Archdiocese of Miami,” Wenkski wrote. “The Archdiocese of Miami’s services for unaccompanied minors have been recognized for their excellence and have served as a model for other agencies throughout the country.”

"I am your Retribution"

Acknowledging the reality of declining migration, Wenski wrote that while “it is true that the number of unaccompanied minors” had declined and “some programs may be scaled back” or shuttered, “it is baffling that the U.S. government would shut down a program that it would be hard-pressed to replicate at the level of competence” shown by the church.

No it is not, it is baffling, You crossed swords with Trump and made him look bad! You're lucky that he didn't declare you a Terrorist Organization!

The British newspaper The Independent writes about the feud,

The American-born Pope Leo has been vocally critical of the Trump administration, both for the way it treats immigrants and because of its warmongering. During the Pope's annual address to the Vatican diplomatic corps — sometimes referred to as his "state of the world" address — he called for peace and rebuked world leaders who sought out conflict.

That criticism did not sit well with Trump.

In January, apostolic nuncio Cardinal Christophe Pierre — serving as Pope Leo's U.S. representative — was called to the Pentagon to meet with U.S. officials.

A report by The Free Press claims that Pierre was dressed down by Pentagon officials over the Pope's anti-war comments and that he was told that "the United States has the military power to do whatever it wants" and that the Vatican should side with the U.S.

[...]

“We don’t like a pope that’s going to say that it’s OK to have a nuclear weapon. … He’s a man that doesn’t think that we should be toying with a country that wants a nuclear weapon so they can blow up the world,” Trump told reporters while referencing Iran. “I’m not a fan of Pope Leo.”

I am reminded of the song lyric that could apply to Trump in Jim Croce song, "You Don’t Mess Around with Jim"

You don't tug on Superman's cape

You don't spit into the wind

You don't pull the mask off that old Lone Ranger

And you don't mess around with "the Donald"

I Have A Simple Solution!

Both parties are on a "kick" to "Save the Children!"

The big, evil internet! It is apparently "corrupting" our children, so we need laws to prevent that.

The problem is: who decides what is unacceptable for children to view? We have already seen what Republicans think should be banned from the internet for minors based on the books they want to remove from libraries, specifically LGBTQ+ content.

The second question is: how? How are they going to enforce age restrictions on our web searches?

Age verification is coming for the internet — and it’s already raising red flags

Legislative efforts to age-gate parts of the internet are gaining traction. Some experts warn of compliance complications and data security breaches.

NBC News

By Angela Yang

April 15, 2026

What began as an effort to bolster kids’ safety online has morphed in recent months into a broader debate over privacy and anonymity on the internet.

Mandatory age verification, which requires websites and apps to confirm or estimate users’ ages before they grant access to certain content, has continued to gain traction nationwide, as more states pass laws mandating some form of it.

Supporters argue the rules are necessary to protect children from harmful content, including pornography. Critics counter that age verification could backfire — and undermine privacy and free expression online.

“Every single time an age authentication mandate goes into effect, the internet shrinks some,” said Eric Goldman, a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law who focuses on internet law, adding that as mandates are implemented across the board, they could determine whether people have "conversations online that we find socially valuable."

This will be the ultimate tracking cookie! Your name and age will be tagged everywhere you search.

In the U.S., the bipartisan Kids Internet and Digital Safety Act, introduced in March, would require platforms to deploy age verification measures to identify minors in some cases. The Federal Trade Commission also recently declared its support for social media companies to collect limited personal information for age verification to protect kids.

“Age verification technologies are some of the most child-protective technologies to emerge in decades,” Christopher Mufarrige, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said in a statement.

Whenever trans students are discussed in legislative hearings, the Republican mantra is "Parents' Rights" and "Get the government off our backs." Somehow, we aren't hearing that from them now.

My Simple Solution?

It is actually quite simple. It requires no new laws, no invasive tracking, and it fits perfectly with the "Parents' Rights" mantra. Are you ready for it?

When you get a cell phone or an internet connection, there should be a box you check that says: "I want this device age-limited."

Wow... what a novel idea! Make the parents responsible for limiting what can be searched on a device, not the federal government.

A wave of litigation targeting social platforms — including the recent bellwether verdict in Los Angeles, which held Meta and Google liable for social media addiction, and the ongoing child safety lawsuits against Roblox — has also put increasing pressure on companies to age-gate their products.

You don't want me on the jury because I would have said... where were the parents? They don't supervise their children they want the government to do it! This is a 180 degree switch for the Republicans! Why? All of sudden do they want more legislation? Maybe it is because you know darn well that our searches of anything "LGBTQ+" will be limited!

“Understanding the age of people online is an industry-wide challenge,” Instagram wrote in a blog post announcing expanded policies for teen accounts last year. “We’ll continue our efforts to help ensure teens are placed in age-appropriate online experiences, like Teen Accounts, but the most effective way to understand age is by obtaining parental approval and verifying age on the app store.”

Bingo!!!!

Put the onus on the parents, not limits on everyone’s searches. Can you imagine the surveillance and advertising you would face with a cookie that identifies your name and age? Just think: they could have age-targeted ads for everything. If you’re in your 70s, they’ll load you up with ads for Metamucil and walkers!

“It requires the disclosure of immutable information that’s personal and private, and it requires the party that takes it to make sure that they don’t use it for any other purpose than for the verification, and then maybe they keep some record of it,” said Mackey, of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “And so all of that creates both privacy and data security risks, but it also fundamentally undermines your ability under the First Amendment to engage in anonymous speech online.”

Implementing effective age restrictions also requires users to trust tech companies to handle their data safely, a feat that's difficult in light of frequent breaches.

When I first came out, it was the internet that opened my eyes to the possibility of transition. It will be people like us whom they censor—just as they do in libraries with their rallying cry of "Save the Children." They want to yank any website with LGBTQ+ content right off the web.

Will every website be forced to register and categorize its content? What happens when there is a disagreement over that content? Who decides? Could my blog be labeled "adult content" simply because I discuss LGBTQ+ issues? Will I be silenced?

Imagine: a "radical leftist" arguing for less government, while the MAGA right argues for more government regulations!

Biased?

We talk about biased judges but usually it for one ruling or another, but what happens when a judge blames a whole party... can they still make an impartial rulings?

What happens when it is a Supreme Court justice?

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas blasts progressivism as threat to America

He said values in the Declaration of Independence have "fallen out of favor."

ABC News

By Devin Dwyer

April 16, 2026

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Wednesday delivered a televised broadside against progressivism, a political philosophy he described as an existential threat to America and the principles that founded it 250 years ago. 

“Progressivism seeks to replace the basic premises of the Declaration of Independence and hence our form of government,” Thomas said in a speech at the University of Texas Austin Law School pegged to the nation’s upcoming milestone birthday. 

A spirit of “cynicism, rejection, hostility and animus” toward America -- by Americans -- has taken hold, Thomas said in remarks carried live on CSPAN.

I don't about you but I find this very disturbing!

Judges should not have an agenda!

Back in 2022 Justice Thomas said...

In Roe decision, Justice Clarence Thomas invites new legal challenges to contraception and same-sex marriage rights

Experts told The Texas Tribune that Thomas’ opinion signals an openness from the court to reconsidering other settled legal precedents related to rights the court has ruled are protected by the constitution.

Texas Tribune

By James Barragán

June 24, 2022

Tucked inside the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling Friday that overturned the long-held constitutional protection for abortion was a concurring opinion from conservative Justice Clarence Thomas. In it, he pushed the court to revisit cases that have already been decided related to contraception and same-sex marriage.

Fueling already heightened anxieties from women and LGBTQ groups that the end of Roe could be the tip of the iceberg, Thomas wrote that “in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents.”

“Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous,’ we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents,” Thomas wrote.

So what that means...

“The Supreme Court’s decision has brought us into a new era where they are taking away rights instead of giving them,” said Rocio Fierro-Pérez, political coordinator for the Texas Freedom Network, which advocates for individual liberties. “Abortion access is one of several fundamental rights that’s under attack including our right to vote, racial justice, LGBTQ rights, and they’re all intertwined with our right to liberty in which Roe v. Wade was grounded.”

Emily Berman, associate professor of law at the University of Houston Law Center, said Thomas’ opinion sends a strong message.

“He’s saying ‘This opinion doesn’t do it because people haven’t asked us to, but I think people should ask us and we should reconsider this entire area of law,’” Berman said.

It means that the right to access contraceptives, interracial marriage, marriage equality in Thomas's view all the court ruling s were wrong!

CNBC reported back then;

Key Points

• Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said landmark high court rulings that established gay rights and contraception rights should be reconsidered now that the federal right to abortion has been revoked.
• Thomas wrote that those rulings “were demonstrably erroneous decisions.”
• The cases he cited are Griswold vs. Connecticut, in which the Supreme Court said married couples have the right to obtain contraceptives; Lawerence v. Texas, which established the right to engage in private sexual acts; and Obergefell v. Hodges, which said there is a right to same-sex marriage.
• The Supreme Court tossed out Roe v. Wade, which established abortion as a constitutional right.

That is very, very scary!

The ABC News article goes on to show more of his political bias,

Thomas, the Supreme Court’s senior conservative member, spoke broadly, not referencing specific contemporary events or political figures to make his case. But his comments come at a critical time for the sharply divided country and the Court. 

He said that the values enshrined in the 1776 Declaration of Independence have “fallen out of favor” among Americans -- a trend perpetrated, he argued, by “intellectuals” and the nation’s colleges and universities. 

This judge clearly has an axe to grind. He was controversial when he was appointed. You might remember that the justice didn't report that he  accepted luxury trips and gifts from billionaire Republican donor Harlan Crow.

It Is All A Lie!

Remember what you were taught in school about the "Separation of Church & State"? Well according to Trump's hand picked commission it is all a lie!

Religious Liberty Commission Holds Final Hearing on the Past, Present, and Future of Religious Liberty in America

U.S, Department of Justice: Office of Public Affairs

Monday, April 13, 2026

 

 

 Today, the Religious Liberty Commission (RLC) held its final hearing to discuss the past, present, and future of religious liberty in America. 

“Today’s capstone hearing of President Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission contained more powerful testimony and discussion about how people of religion are under assault by the secular left," said Chairman Dan Patrick. "It is time to set the record straight: there is no such thing as ‘separation of church and state’ in the Constitution. For too long, the anti-God left has used this phrase to suppress people of religion in our country. During all 7 Commission hearings, witness after witness testified that the so-called ‘separation of church and state’ was used to take their God-given religious liberty rights away. Next month, the Commission will deliver our recommendations to President Trump to ensure that Americans’ religious liberty is safeguarded against evil forces seeking to suppress them in our country.” 

You know that this is really scary coming from an administration that has been characterized as pushing for a Christian Nation! Look at the wording in that press release! "people of religion are under assault by the secular left"the anti-God left" tell me that isn't biased?

Church-state separation is a ‘lie,’ says Trump's Religious Liberty Commission chair
‘Church-state separation ensures we are all free to live as ourselves and believe as we choose, as long as we don’t harm others,’ a church-state separationist countered.

Religious News Service

 Adelle M. Banks
April 14, 2026

 

 

 The leader of President Donald Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission said that church and state separation is a falsehood at the group’s final meeting, drawing criticism from an advocacy group that supports it.

At a Monday (April 13) hearing at the Museum of the Bible in Washington, D.C., Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, a Republican and the chair of the commission, asked, “Would it not be a good recommendation that every school, every university, every business, has to have that one sheet on the bulletin board about protecting people’s religious liberty, and that the separation of church and state is the biggest lie that’s been told in America since our founding?”

 

[...]

 

 “Church-state separation ensures we are all free to live as ourselves and believe as we choose, as long as we don’t harm others,” Laser said in a statement issued Monday. “It allows us all to come together as equals to build a stronger democracy. It is an American original, something we should be proud of, fight for, and cherish.”

They want to hang the Ten Commandments in the classrooms!

 In February, Americans United joined Democracy Forward in filing a lawsuit against the commission, challenging its composition that included one non-Christian and stating that its “Christian members do not represent the full diversity of the Christian faith.” The suit was filed on behalf of interfaith, Muslim, Sikh and Hindu organizations. Americans United and Democracy Forward have since sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the publication of a commission report while their case is considered by a federal district court.

Trump would never do anything like packing the commission with Christian Nationalists? While the Baptist News reported...

The lawsuit, Interfaith Alliance, et al. v. Trump, et al., was filed by Democracy Forward and Americans United for Separation of Church and State on behalf of Interfaith Alliance, Muslims for Progressive Values, Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Hindus for Human Rights.

The coalition claims Trump’s commission violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act and offers unbalanced and biased viewpoints. The coalition wants the court to order the Commission to comply with FACA’s transparency requirements by publishing documents regarding the committee’s proceedings.

 

[..]

 

 This is the second such case brought against the Religious Liberty Commission by the same coalition.

Rev. Paul Brandeis Raushenbush v. Donald Trump was filed in federal district court in New York in February, seeking a declaration the board was unlawfully founded and constituted and to require any documents and recommendations it produces to be made public.

 

[...]

 

 “However, these lofty ideals were swiftly disregarded and proved to be shambolic,” the suit states. “President Trump and Attorney General Bondi — who is generally tasked with performing the functions of the president for the Commission — appointed to the commission only extremist individuals who believe that America is, and should be, a ‘Judeo-Christian’ nation, advocate for government-endorsed religion, and have a history of discriminating against disfavored groups.

“And despite the Commission’s stated goal of celebrating religious diversity and religious pluralism, no member of the Commission represents a minority religion (other than one Orthodox Jewish member) and no member represents an interfaith perspective. On top of selecting a skewed and biased membership, the Commission has refused to release agendas, meeting minutes, transcripts and other Commission materials.”

Hey and this is from the Baptist News! Not some secular news outlet!

 

USA Today writes,

 Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, the commission's chairman, at one point called it the “biggest lie that’s been told in America since our founding.” 

Patrick's statement echoed comments made in previous Religious Liberty Commission hearings and by the Trump administration more broadly that suggest the government can and should promote religion as a public good without violating the First Amendment, which says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

You know how the Republican's courts are always harping on "Originalists" in the Constitution well how original is this...

 President Thomas Jefferson popularized the phrase “separation between church and state” in the early 19th century, but it does not appear in the Constitution. Over the centuries, courts and scholars have debated where the line should be drawn as it relates to the government and religion.

---

Meanwhile, the Trump adminstration wants to conduct warrantless searches! Republicans, White House considering warrant-related amendment in high-stakes FISA talks

There’s growing acknowledgment that the clean reauthorization the White House desires is a no-go.

Politico

By: Meredith Lee Hill, Mia McCarthy

04/15/2026

Speaker Mike Johnson canceled a vote scheduled for Wednesday evening on a clean reauthorization of a key spy power amid a hard-liner rebellion — a blow to President Donald Trump whose senior administration officials throughout the day tried to seal the deal ahead of the program’s expiration in five days.

Leaving the Capitol Wednesday night, Johnson said he believed negotiators needed “a few more hours” to wrap up discussions on proposed changes, and that the process could get back on track Thursday. “We’re working through some final details,” he added.

[...]

The provision would require the government to obtain a warrant for “U.S. person queries” under Section 702, once there is probable cause that the individual is an agent of a foreign power or has committed a crime. While it would codify components of current surveillance law, it also would serve as a compromise by putting some restraints around many of the routine, warrantless surveillance practices now acceptable under existing statute.

[...]

But White House officials are still trying to rein in the scope of this proposal even further given Trump’s demand for no policy changes or new guardrails on the government’s use of the spy powers authority.

So the "problem" is the White House doesn't want to have to get warrants to search through your phone and email records... They want to use computer to search databases for "un-American" actives... Of course Trump & Company gets to decide what is and isn't "un-American" actives. Trans forums? Un-American!

Intelligence Chair Rick Crawford (R-Ark.) said in a brief interview Wednesday evening that there was still a lot of conversation around warrants and potential reforms. When asked about the Higgins amendment [Requires that they obtain a warrant for “U.S. person queries”] in particular, Crawford said leadership has to consider the number of people they will gain on a final vote versus lose with any changes.

The that is too much to ask for according to Trump!

Not With Trump!

Maybe we need this now more than ever!

April is Diversity Month! Celebrate a World of Differences.

Celebrating Diversity: Embracing a World of Differences

As we celebrate Diversity Month, it’s important to remember that diversity is not just a buzzword. Diversity Month is a celebration of differences that help us to learn, grow and understand each other better. By embracing diversity, we can create an inclusive environment where everyone feels welcomed and valued.

Why It’s Important To Celebrate Diversity Celebrate Diversity

Diversity promotes inclusivity, understanding, and appreciation for different cultures, backgrounds, and perspectives. When we celebrate diversity, we recognize the value of each individual and acknowledge the contributions that people from different backgrounds can bring to our society. 

Just a few of the reasons why it is important to celebrate diversity:

• Encourage inclusivity: Celebrating diversity encourages inclusivity and helps to create a more welcoming environment for people from all backgrounds.
• Promote understanding: Celebrating diversity can help to promote understanding and tolerance. By learning about different cultures and experiences, we can gain a better understanding of the challenges and struggles faced by people from different backgrounds.
• Help to combat discrimination and racism: Celebrating diversity helps to combat discrimination and racism by creating awareness about the importance of accepting and valuing people from different backgrounds.
• Challenge stereotypes: When we celebrate our differences, and are open to our diversity, we can challenge common stereotypes by promoting a more nuanced and complex understanding of different cultures and backgrounds. We can highlight the diversity within different communities and showcase the unique strengths and talents of individuals from different backgrounds. 
• Foster creativity and innovation: By bringing together people from different backgrounds and experiences, diversity can foster creativity and innovation. It can also lead to new ideas, perspectives, and solutions to problems.
• Enhance personal growth: Celebrating diversity can enhance personal growth by exposing us to new ideas, perspectives, and experiences. It can also help us to develop greater empathy and compassion for others.

When I think of diversity I think of Lynn Conway and IBM firing her when she transitioned! Among her many accolades she was name a IEEE Fellow (Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers) as a pioneer in integrated circuits.

With Trump stamping out anything DEI he is harming one of our greatest national treasures, our diversity! No other nation has the diversity that we have!

Rainbow Warriors

Republicans often used phrases like:

• “Get government off your back”
• “Less government, more freedom”
• “Lower taxes, smaller government”

Now they want more funding for domestic terrorists! You remember in Minneapolis during the ICE occupation Pam Bondi the Attorney General and the border czar Tom Homan both labeled the peaceful protesters “domestic terrorism.”!

Trump’s new budget turns the FBI into the gender police

The plan casts opposition to “traditional values” as terrorism and raises fears of political targeting.

The Advocate

Jack Walker

Apr 13, 2026

A new budget proposal from the Trump administration seeks to increase federal counterterrorism funding targeting what it describes as “domestic terrorism,” including a focus on gender “extremism.”

President Donald Trump submitted a fiscal year 2027 budget request to Congress earlier this month, seeking a $166 million increase for the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s counterterrorism efforts. The proposal pairs that funding increase with language urging federal authorities to scrutinize ideological movements the administration casts as threats to national security.

They mean us!

The proposal claims that “anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity” constitute emerging national security concerns. It includes “domestic terrorists” who practice “extremism on migration, race and gender,” or who oppose “traditional American views on family, religion and morality.”

The question is whose “traditional American views on family, religion and morality.” the families that toss LGBTQ members aside or the families that accept their children as they are? The Washington Blade reports...

Central to the proposal is the creation of a new “NSPM-7 Joint Mission Center,” a direct follow-up to the September 2025 National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7). The directive instructs the Justice Department, the FBI, and other national security agencies to combat what the administration defines as “political violence in America,” effectively reshaping the Joint Terrorism Task Force network to focus on “leftist” political ideologies, according to reporting by independent journalist Ken Klippenstein.

[...]

The proposed mission center would include personnel from 10 federal agencies tasked with targeting “domestic terrorists” associated with a wide range of ideologies. Among them is what the administration labels “extremism” related to gender, alongside categories such as “anti-Americanism,” “anti-capitalism,” “anti-Christianity,” and “support for the overthrow of the U.S. government.” The document also cites “hostility toward those who hold traditional American views” on family, religion, and morality — language LGBTQ advocates have increasingly warned could be used to frame queer and transgender rights movements as ideological threats.

What the hell is “anti-Americanism" it sound like a catch-all term for anything anti-Republican!

The FBI is Requesting Funding for a Disturbing Crime Center

By: LDF Staff

Apr 10, 2026

IN BRIEF: In its budget request to Congress for next year, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is seeking funding for a ‘domestic terrorism’ center that targets and tracks Americans who have vaguely characterized beliefs, such as:

• Anti-Americanism
• Anti-capitalism
• Extremism on race, gender, and migration
• Hostility toward those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality

WHY IT MATTERS: Following the issuance of a September 2025 presidential memo, the Trump administration has expanded the weaponization of the term “domestic terrorism.” For example, Alex Pretti and Renee Good were both killed by federal officers in Minneapolis and falsely called domestic terrorists by some administration officials with no evidence.

The request for funding argues that domestic terrorists “exploit” social media platforms, smaller websites, and encrypted chat applications — platforms that millions of Americans of all ages and backgrounds use — to rally support for their causes and in-person actions.

The sweeping efforts by the Trump administration to categorize dissent as domestic terrorism — and to mobilize federal resources to punish this dissent — is part of a chilling slip into authoritarianism.

I agree!

Bogus “Antifa” Designations and FBI Warrantless Access to Americans’ Communications

Guarding FISA Section 702’s “Back Door”

Just Security

By Ryan Goodman

April 14, 2026

Congress faces a choice later this month over the FBI’s access to Americans’ email, text, and phone conversations. A surveillance program created nearly twenty years ago – Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) – will sunset on April 20 if Congress does not reauthorize it. Section 702 allows U.S. intelligence agencies to collect the email, text, and phone communications of foreign nationals located outside the United States. As a byproduct, Americans’ communications are caught in the net as well. Subject to limitations that Congress introduced in 2024, the FBI can dip into that vast database to look for derogatory information on Americans – without a warrant and without probable cause of wrongdoing.

That “back door,” allowing access to Americans’ communications, is ripe for abuse especially in the context of the administration’s campaign to paint “antifa” as an international and domestic terrorist threat (see Section II below). Any expert of national security surveillance law following the government’s escalating actions on “antifa” can connect the dots to FISA electronic surveillance and other counterterrorism and intelligence authorities. Very recent reporting by the New York Times and Puck News points in that direction as well.

Because it is amorphous and untethered to the facts, the “antifa” label creates a framework for bringing peaceful civil society organizations and everyday Americans exercising their right to protest into the Section 702 surveillance net. Hence, the question of whether Congress should reauthorize Section 702 but with a requirement that the FBI obtain a warrant from a federal judge to look at Americans’ communications.

New York Civil Liberties Union reports that,

In September, President Trump issued a National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM-7) called “Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence” with chilling implications for political speech in America. The memorandum appears to be designed to crack down on activists and non-profits. And based on the list of political views the document targets, the Trump administration could use NSPM-7 to go after pretty much anyone who isn’t a MAGA faithful.

Under the logic of NSPM-7, the Trump administration categorizes views it equates with “anti-Americanism,” “anti-Christianity,” “extremism on migration,” “extremism on race,” “extremism on gender,” or opposition to what it regards as “traditional American views on family, religion, and morality” as domestic terrorist threats.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with these views, the First Amendment undoubtedly protects them. And no matter what Trump and his allies think, NSPM-7 cannot override our constitutional rights, which still protect freedom of speech and association.

Our fear is that, under NSPM-7, constitutionally protected speech could become the grounds for criminal investigation by the Trump administration. There is no federal crime of “domestic terrorism.” But the memo seems designed to allow First Amendment protected speech to be the basis for beginning law enforcement investigations that could lead to other criminal charges, and chill free speech and association. In other words, NSPM-7 could open the door to criminalizing those who have viewpoints the Trump administration doesn’t like.

Tell me one thing... Do you trust Trump and his cronies to with this power?

---

Update: 2:00PM

I just found this from the ACLU, How NSPM-7 Seeks to Use "Domestic Terrorism" to Target Nonprofits and Activists.

Nonprofits, their donors, and activists striving for a more equal, just, and fair country and world are core components of American civil society. Yet on September 25, President Donald Trump issued a National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM-7) called “Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence,” essentially adding them to an ever-growing list of what he calls the “enemy within.”

Civil society nonprofits and activists thus join segments of academia, the legal profession, public health professionals and scientists, and so many others President Trump sees as his political opponents and critics. For all of us seeking to uphold the Constitution, fundamental human rights, and civil liberties, it’s almost a badge of courage and honor.

On its face, NSPM-7 is chilling to read: If anyone needed proof that “terrorism” and “political violence” are slippery and fraught categories subject to political, ideological, and racial manipulation and bias—well, this is it.

]...]

The bottom line in cutting through the noise of reprehensible and irresponsible presidential rhetoric and actions is this: No president can rewrite the Constitution and the safeguards we have under it. These safeguards most emphatically include our First Amendment-protected freedoms of belief, speech, and association; our Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures; our Fifth Amendment right to due process; and our right to Equal Protection under the laws of this country. Under the 14th Amendment, these due process and equal protection rights apply equally to actions taken by federal and state agencies against tax-exempt nonprofits.

I wouldn't doubt that I'm on that list because of all the advocacy work I have done.

Up For A Vote!

“Privilege is never having your basic rights up for debate.”

Well here we go again are rights are up for a vote again, this time in Maine!

Maine referendum regarding school sports gets public hearing in state legislature

The measure would require all Maine schools to designate sports teams, bathrooms and locker rooms by a student's assigned gender at birth.

WMTW Ch 8

Cameron Lobley

April 14, 2026

The Maine State Legislature's Judiciary Committee was holding a public hearing on Tuesday morning on the only statewide referendum question appearing on this year's ballot: "An act to designate school sports participation and facilities by sex."

The measure, a citizen initiative introduced by the group Protect Girls Sports in Maine (PGS), would bar transgender students from competing in school sports teams that align with their gender identity. It would also prevent transgender students from using athletic facilities that align with their gender identity.

Instead, participation and use of facilities would align with the sex on the student's birth certificate.

The ballot question, as drafted, reads: "Do you want to change civil rights and education laws to require public schools to restrict access to bathrooms and sports based on the gender on the child's original birth certificate and allow students to sue the schools?"

You know this totally doesn't make sense to me!

#1 In Maine you can change you birth certificate with a letter from a doctor!

#2 By banning trans people from sports you are denying us:

• Life skills” development (this is where “leadership” comes in)
• Teamwork (working toward shared goals)
• Discipline (practice schedules, training commitment)
• Leadership (captains organizing teammates, motivating others)
• Time management (balancing school and practice)
• Responsibility (showing up prepared, accountability to a team)
• Resilience (handling failure, competition, and setbacks)

They say it is because of girl that got injured by a trans girl last year in Maine. But last year there were between 3,700 and 7,500 volleyball head injuries. but now with one injury, they want to ban us instead of protecting the 7,000 other injuries

I Have A Question...

... For you. You all have seen these photos of Trump. Who made them? Trump? Or the White House staff?

 

What difference does it make?

 

Well there is a law that says you cannot use government employees to do political work. So if the staff did them it will be a violation of the Hatch Act.

 

With all the turmoil over Trump as Jesus, I doubt very much that Trump is talented enough to make them, so who did, they are political in nature so if a staffer did them...

If the White House communications staff made them then it would most likly be a violation of th ehatch Act. The staff is supposed to focus on policy and administration business not using religious imagery to frame the President as a divine figure usually leans into personal "cult of personality" or campaign-style messaging, which for many is being seen as political.