The Constitution? What's That?

He has ignored the Constitution! A little something called the Frist and Second Amendments.

Courts all across the country have ruled you cannot stop people from videoing the police!

The Trump administration is increasingly trying to criminalize observing ICE

NPR All This Considered

Meg Anderson

February 18, 2026

Like many people in the Twin Cities, Jess has been observing ICE officers: following them in her car and documenting their actions. Earlier this month, she was in North Minneapolis, when immigration agents told her and another observer they were impeding a federal investigation.

"We followed at a distance. We never got in front of them. We never honked our horns. We never made any sort of noise. We were just keeping an eye on them," said Jess, who requested NPR only use her first name because she fears retaliation from the federal government.

She says she kept tracking the officers at a distance. But then the three vehicles she was following turned around and drove toward her. Federal agents hopped out.

"They all had their guns drawn. I kept saying, 'What you're doing is illegal. You have no right to do this,'" she said. "At that point, they started breaking my window. All I could think about was not being shot."

One officer shattered her driver's side window with a baton. At that, she opened the door. The agents pulled her out and handcuffed her. She was detained for about eight hours.

Now, Jess is waiting to see whether the federal government is going to charge her with a crime for observing its actions. She is not the only person in that position. NPR spoke with several other observers in Minnesota who said immigration officers told them they were impeding federal investigations.

Guns? They even got the NRA mad at them!

'Fundamentally wrong:' Gun groups, Republicans condemn Noem, Patel statements

Axios

Marc Caputo

Jan 25, 2026

A Minnesota gun-rights group accused Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and FBI director Kash Patel of spreading misinformation about the right to bear arms at protests.

Why it matters: The Trump administration's misstatements about Alex Pretti's shooting death are damaging its credibility even with allies, especially in the gun-rights community.

• "We're getting it from all sides," a Trump adviser told Axios on Sunday.

Zoom in: Appearing on "Sunday Morning Futures With Maria Bartiromo," Patel said, "You cannot bring a firearm, loaded, with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want. It's that simple. You don't have a right to break the law."

• Patel was echoing Noem, who said Saturday, "I don't know of any peaceful protester that shows up with a gun and ammunition rather than a sign."
• The Gun Owners Caucus of Minnesota was quick to dispute Patel's statements, posting on X that Patel was "completely incorrect on Minnesota law. There is no prohibition on a permit holder carrying a firearm, loaded, with multiple magazines at a protest or rally in Minnesota."
• The group's president, Rob Doar, told Axios that Noem's understanding of Minnesota gun law was "fundamentally wrong," and he took issue with her statements about Pretti not having his ID while he carried his concealed weapon.

He has ignored court orders!

Courts have ruled 4,400 times that ICE jailed people illegally. It hasn’t stopped.

Reuters

By Nate Raymond, Kristina Cooke and Brad Heath

February 14, 2026

Summary

• Detained immigrants have filed more than 20,000 lawsuits seeking their release
• Trump administration continues detentions despite court rulings
• Sheer scale of the lawsuits threatens to clog the judicial system
• About 700 Justice Department attorneys deployed to represent the government in immigration cases

Hundreds of judges around the country have ruled more than 4,400 times since October that President Donald Trump’s administration is detaining immigrants unlawfully, a Reuters review of court records found.

The decisions amount to a sweeping legal rebuke of Trump’s immigration crackdown. Yet the administration has continued jailing people indefinitely even after courts ruled the policy was illegal.

Them writes,

Lawsuit Says Trump Admin “Motivated by Animus” to Remove Stonewall Pride Flag

Advocates called the removal “an arbitrary and capricious action.”

By Samantha Riedel

February 18, 2026

LGBTQ+ advocates say the Trump administration violated federal law by ordering a rainbow Pride flag removed from the Stonewall National Monument earlier this month, according to a lawsuit filed in New York on Tuesday.

The lawsuit claims that the Department of Interior (DOI) and National Park Service (NPS) violated the Administrative Procedure Act by removing a Pride flag from the Stonewall monument on February 9. The flag’s removal is “a textbook example of an arbitrary and capricious action,” the lawsuit alleges, referencing a common legal test for whether an agency’s actions are lawful.

NPS acting director Jessica Bowron advised regional directors that “only the U.S. Flag, flags of the DOI, and the POW/MIA flag will be flown” on flagpoles maintained by the Service, with some exemptions for flags of historical significance, in a DOI memo distributed last month. The lawsuit argues that as the first LGBTQ+ Pride flag to be flown on federal land, the official NPS Stonewall Pride flag itself constitutes important historical context for the LGBTQ+ rights movement.

“When leaders imply they answer to a person instead of the law, marginalized communities are always the first to feel it.”

Hmm… where have we heard that before? Wasn’t it in some city in Germany in the ’40s?

Breaking News: Supreme Court Say No To Tariffs!

This just in... Supreme Court strikes down parts of Trump's tariffs!

Live updates: Supreme Court rules against Trump's tariffs, limiting president's power to impose taxes

The decision does not affect all of Trump's tariffs but invalidates those implemented using a 1977 law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

NBC News

February 20, 2026

What to know

• The Supreme Court ruled that President Donald Trump exceeded his authority when imposing sweeping tariffs using a law reserved for a national emergency.
• The decision does not affect all of Trump’s tariffs but invalidates those implemented using a 1977 law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
• Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the ruling that the Trump administration had asserted "extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration and scope,” but pointed to no statute that said the IEEPA could apply to tariffs.
• The ruling blocks Trump's sweeping reciprocal tariffs and those the president imposed on Canada, China and Mexico in what he said was an effort to stop the flow of illegal drugs.
• Democrats in Congress applauded the decision, saying the tariffs had impinged on Congress' constitutional authority and hurt average Americans. Some major U.S. trading partners were muted, however, saying they were reviewing the decision and emphasizing the need for stability in international trade.

So the big question is will Trump obey the law and the courts? And remember, this is Trump's court!

Living In The Past

You see, the Republican dream is to turn the clock back to the 1950s, the time of “Father Knows Best” and “Ozzie and Harriet”, when Black people were expected to “know their place” and we were confined to sleazy bars. Back to when abortions were backroom deals unless you had the money to fly to Switzerland.

Project 2025 creator wants to ban gender-affirming care for trans adults

Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts recently endorsed taking gender-affirming care away from transgender adults.

The Advocate

Ryan Adamczeski

Feb 19, 2026

After successfully pushing unscientific bans against gender-affirming care for youth, the creator of Project 2025 wants to outlaw the life-saving treatment even for adults.

Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts recently endorsed taking care away from transgender adults, saying in an episode of the PBD podcast that the organization is currently "running the numbers" on the supposed correlation between gender-affirming surgeries and violence. His proposed solution? "You outlaw it."

You know that for us, taking away our hormones would be a death sentence. Why? Because hormones build strong bones. Why do you think older people get regular bone density tests? One of the things puberty does is strengthen bones.

And of course, they are going to tie us to “angry trans people” over last week’s murders. The article goes on…

"But where there continues to be disagreement is on what you do with adults. At Heritage, we believe that so-called transgender surgery is bad for anybody because of what you saw in Rhode Island yesterday," Roberts said, referencing the Monday mass shooting that left three people dead, including the shooter, and three others critically injured, all of whom were related to the shooter. Police have described the attack as targeted and domestic in nature.

"There does seem to be a mounting body of evidence that suggests a correlation between that surgery at any age, mental health issues, and increasingly, although we're running the numbers on this at Heritage, acts of violence," Roberts added, falsely.

That is so stupid. We are the ones being attacked, harassed, and discriminated against, but when we fight back, all of a sudden we’re portrayed as crazed killers. They do the same thing with all minorities. Look at Minneapolis, they labeled the whole Somali community as criminals to justify bringing in ICE. Republican rhetoric inflames tensions and drives wedges through communities.

Despite the overwhelming evidence, 26 states currently ban gender-affirming care for youth, according to the Movement Advancement Project. In 11 states, the care is already restricted for adults through laws preventing Medicaid from covering the treatment for all ages. Roberts continued to say he would support completely outlawing the care.

You watch... marriage equality is next and repeal of non-discrimination laws are in their agenda.

---

Update: 2:00PM

Idaho GOP seeks to legalize anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination in wave of bills

“We deserve safety, we deserve joy and love, and to exist without our humanity being debated every legislative session.”

LGBTQ Nation

Daniel Villarreal (he/him)

February 20, 2026, 10:00 am EST

LGBTQ+ advocates are speaking out against several anti-LGBTQ+ bills introduced by the Republican supermajority in Idaho’s legislature, including one that would legalize anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination by local businesses.

The bills include H.B. 607, a bill banning trans people from using the correct restrooms and changing rooms in government buildings and public businesses, and H.B. 606, a bill criminalizing trans people from using facilities that match their gender identity; H.B. 516, a “don’t say gay” bill banning LGBTQ+ instruction in public school classrooms; H.B. 561, a bill banning the Pride flag from being flown at city and county government buildings; and H.B. 557, a bill blocking local LGBTQ+ anti-discrimination protections.

Boy it didn't take long for my prediction to come true

• H.B. 607: A ban on trans-inclusive public accommodations
• H.B. 606: A bill criminalizing trans people in public facilities

But it is not just us but the whole community!

• H.B. 561: A Pride flag ban
• H.B. 557: A bill legalizing anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination

These bills are horrible! They put a bounty on us!

State Rep. Stephanie Mickelsen (R), also denounced the anti-trans public accommodations bill, saying, “It puts a bounty on the government of $10,000 just simply for somebody being in the wrong room — not for them having done anything, but just having been in the wrong room,” adding, “I think that this bill is actually a way to intimidate and harass private businesses to push someone’s particular agenda.”

Nikson Mathew, the transgender chair of the Idaho Democratic Queer Caucus, said, “These bills … police public spaces, censor speech, override local control, take away parental rights, restrict privacy and target LGBTQ+ people and families… I just want to say to every queer and trans Idahoan: We deserve safety, we deserve joy and love, and to exist without our humanity being debated every legislative session.”

Just think how many cis-women will be caught in their dragnet?

Why?

Think about this... why did they think that this was ok?

That’s the question; not just that they did it, but why they thought nothing would happen if they did.

Smiling students proudly spell out “hateful” slur during school assembly

Two 8th-grade boys seen holding hands were allegedly objects of ridicule by a group of seniors.

LGBTQ Nation

Greg Owen

February 17, 2026

Ten students at Redwood High School in California’s Central Valley are facing blowback from fellow students and the wider community after they spelled out the word “FA***TS” (without the asterisks) on t-shirts during a school assembly on Friday.

On Monday, Visalia Unified School District officials announced that “disciplinary action” had been taken over the “hateful homophobic slur.”

[...]

“A lot of people at school, including the senior class, are really upset about the ignorant and rash actions of people who were in the photo,” one Redwood High senior told KFSN News.

“They are widely known in school. They’re supposed to be leading by example with the clubs that they run and represent, and people are just really mad because online things can surface really fast,” she said.

Yes… they have First Amendment rights and all that. However, the question remains: why did they do it? Do you think two or three years ago they would have done it? If not, why? Has the political climate changed?

KFSN, ABC 30 reports that,

The Visalia Unified School District issued an updated statement regarding a photo that has sparked a nationwide backlash on social media.

[...]

In a statement this afternoon, Visalia Unified School District Superintendent Kirk Shrum said the district is continuing to investigate and take appropriate action in accordance with district board policy:

"This week, student leaders are being provided opportunities to engage in healthy and productive dialogue with their peers and staff about belonging and respect. As a district, we will convene a roundtable with community leaders who support students in modeling civility and engaging in positive discourse. Together, we will meet this moment with steadfast resolve to restore and strengthen our community. While we may hold differing views, we can all agree that every individual deserves to be treated with dignity and respect."

The message to parents went on to say Redwood High School Administrators are meeting with students to address hate speech, civility and the responsibility that comes with being a member of the Visalia schools community.

But we circle back to "Why" So I asked an AI what it thought about why they did it now... ChatGPT replied:

---

That’s a question a lot of people in the community have been asking about the Visalia Unified School District incident involving students at Redwood High School.

There isn’t a confirmed explanation from the students themselves, but when situations like this happen, there are some common factors people point to:

1️⃣ “It was just a joke” mindset

Teenagers sometimes frame harmful behavior as humor, especially if they’ve seen slurs normalized online or in peer groups. What feels like a “joke” inside a small group can be deeply harmful outside it.

2️⃣ Peer dynamics

Group settings can lower individual judgment. When several people participate together, responsibility can feel diluted (“everyone’s doing it”).

3️⃣ Social media culture

Shock value and attention often get amplified online. Some teens underestimate how fast images spread and how permanent they are.

4️⃣ Lack of understanding of impact

Some students may not fully grasp how slurs affect LGBTQ+ peers — especially if they haven’t had direct conversations about why that language is harmful.

5️⃣ Broader cultural influences

Language that circulates casually in certain online spaces, gaming communities, or social media can desensitize people to how serious it actually is.

It’s also important to say: thinking something is okay in the moment doesn’t mean it actually is okay. Adolescents’ decision-making and impulse control are still developing, and sometimes they only recognize the weight of their actions once there are consequences.

---

ABC 7 wrote;

"A lot of people at school, including the senior class, are really upset about the ignorant and rash actions of people who were in the photo," says an unnamed Redwood High senior.

[...]

A Redwood senior tells our sister station ABC30 Action News that the gym was filled with hundreds of students at the time, and says those in the photo were leaders on campus.

"They are widely known in school. They're supposed to be leading by example with the clubs that they run and represent, and people are just really mad because online things can surface really fast," says the Redwood High senior.

The best response to this is social isolation... otherwise known as shunning. A non-violent to show disapproval.

The district could not specify the punishment for these students, but says they could be facing serious punishment, including suspension and loss of privileges, but it will ultimately be determined by the district's code of conduct.

Of course not. There are federal laws that rightly prevent the release of that information.

It still all boils down to "Why" did they think it was okay to do?

This Is Far More Common

Every November 20^th we remember our dead. Assaults on trans people is increasing just in Connecticut there has been an increase in bias crimes against us.

Man charged after attacking transgender woman at Portland MAX stop, court records say

By Leslie Dominique and FOX 12 Staff

Published: Feb. 11, 2026

A 51-year-old man remains in custody after prosecutors charged him with a bias crime and several other offenses following an attack on a transgender woman at a Portland MAX station.

The incident occurred the night of Feb. 8 at the PSU Urban Center MAX stop, a routine transit hub for students at Southwest 6th Avenue and Southwest Montgomery Street.

Portland State University confirmed the victim is not affiliated with the university. Court documents say the victim, who identifies as a transgender woman, was waiting for a train when 51-year-old William Thomas Ashley allegedly approached her aggressively.

The victim told officers Ashley repeatedly called her “a man,” then ripped an umbrella from her hands and hit her with it several times. She said he grabbed her by the hair, dragged her to the ground and punched her.

---

Then in New York City, a trans woman was targeted in another attack:

Man attacked on NYC subway for kissing trans woman partner

Police are still searching for the suspect who slashed the man's face.

The Advocate

By Trudy Ring

Jan 21, 2026

New York City police are searching for the person who attacked a man on a subway train the evening of January 10 when the man was kissing his transgender female partner. The attacker shouted homophobic slurs and then slashed the right side of the man’s face with a sharp object, Gay City News reports.

The suspect escaped, and the 28-year-old victim was taken to Bellevue Hospital for treatment. The trans woman was not injured.

The attack is similar to one that occurred December 20, when a man on a subway train was slashed behind his left ear by another passenger after a verbal argument, Metro Weekly reports.

---

And in Seattle...

Convicted felon facing hate crime trial for attack on transgender woman

by Lynnanne Nguyen, KOMONews

February 4, 2026

A convicted felon, Andre Karlow, is on trial facing hate crime and assault charges for allegedly attacking a transgender woman in the U District last year.

Court records reveal this is not the first time Karlow has been accused of attacking a member of the transgender community.

According to court records, Karlow has a criminal history dating back more than 20 years, including more than 30 arrests.

He was convicted last fall for an unprovoked attack in 2024 on another transgender woman working as a Sound Transit fare ambassador. Karlow is scheduled for sentencing in March in that case.

There have been 26 mass shootings in one month in the U.S. from January 1 through January 31, 2026.

They Just Came For Marriage!

We seen the handwriting on the wall, well now it has come fruition!

Tennessee’s newest anti-LGBTQ bills go against U.S. Supreme Court rulings

WPLN

By Marianna Bacallao

February 11, 2026

Tennessee lawmakers have advanced a host of anti-LGBTQ bills that would run counter to U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

Two measures, both proposed by Rep. Gino Bulso, R-Franklin, would challenge landmark cases that legalized same-sex marriage and established protections for discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Rep. Gloria Johnson, D-Knoxville, questioned the legality to going against Bostock v. Clayton County, which established that LGBTQ people are protected from discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

“We’re talking about federal law that supersedes state law,” Johnson said. “You can’t just ignore the federal law. So, therein is the problem for those of us who believe in our U.S. Constitution.”

And get a load of this take on the bill!

Marriage Equality and the Rise of Private-Citizen Protection Laws

Tennessee Stands

Anne Lowery

February 8, 2026

This past Tuesday, the Children and Family Affairs Subcommittee heard HB1473/SB1746, a bill sponsored by Rep. Gino Bulso (R – District 61) and Sen. Janice Bowling (R – District 16) , which would clarify that “Private citizens and organizations are not bound by the Fourteenth Amendment or by the Supreme Court’s purported interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), and no private citizen or organization in this state is required to recognize a marriage or a purported marriage between individuals of the same sex, notwithstanding any other law.”

[...]

It’s important that we understand how we got here, as Tennessee has been in this fight for years. The conversation needs to go in two directions, one being the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize gay marriage from a federal level and two, the moral implications. According to the American College of Pediatricians, the only leading medical organization fighting the transgender ideology in children, “Psychological theory of child development has always recognized the critical role that mothers play in the healthy development of children. More recent research reveals that when fathers are absent, children suffer as well. Girls without fathers perform more poorly in school, are more likely to be sexually active and become pregnant as teenagers. Boys without fathers have higher rates of delinquency, violence, and aggression.” The AACP also reports that, “This research has revealed that children reared in same-sex households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, engage in risky sexual experimentation, and later adopt a same-sex identity.”

Okay, the According to the American College of Pediatricians has about ~700 members and is a socially conservative advocacy group! While the American Academy of Pediatrics has ~67,000 member and supports LGBTQ+ rights and provides evidence-based guidelines for gender-affirming care.

They believe it is their god giving right to discriminate.