Cuckoo Award: Going Cuckoo Over The Straits

If this wasn't so serious it would be a three ring circus. What? Trump's War. It is so crazy it wins the Cuckoo Award!

 

Here is a brief summary...  Iran closes the Strait almost immediately after Trump announced it was opened. Which was contingent on an Israel/Lebanon ceasefire. Trump said he had ordered Israel to do so.  Israel said that Trump is not the boss of them and bombed Lebanon to prove it. Iran now has total control of the Strait. Turns out Trump lied about sinking all their ships, too.

 

What did we call that back when I was working? A Cluster F**k?

Iran closes Strait of Hormuz again over U.S. blockade and fires on ships
Iran’s joint military command warned it would continue to block transits while the U.S. blockade remained in effect.

AP News

By  SAM METZ and SAMY MAGDY
April 18, 2026

 

 

 The standoff over the Strait of Hormuz escalated again Saturday as Iran reversed its reopening of the crucial waterway and fired on ships attempting to pass, in retaliation after the United States pressed ahead with its blockade of Iranian ports.

New attacks on the strait, through which roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil normally passes, threatened to deepen the global energy crisis and push the countries into renewed conflict as the war entered its eighth week.

A fragile ceasefire is due to run out by Wednesday. Iran said it had received new proposals from the United States, and Pakistani mediators were working to arrange another round of direct negotiations.

Iran’s joint military command said “control of the Strait of Hormuz has returned to its previous state ... under strict management and control of the armed forces.” It warned it would continue to block transits while the U.S. blockade remained in effect.

Trump's is being run like a three ring circus! But unlike the circus people are dying.

 

Saturday 9: Drive My Car

Saturday 9: Drive My Car (1965)

On Saturdays I take a break from the heavy stuff and have some fun… 

Unfamiliar with this week's tune? Hear it here.

 

1) Who would you allow, without hesitation, to drive your car?

Besides family members… yes I would let others drive my car.

 

2) When you're riding in the backseat, do you use your seatbelt?

I am not usually in the backseat but when I am, I do. Back in the 70s I tried to see what it was like to go through the front windshield and I decided that it could definitely ruin your day… or week in that case. And since then I always buckle up no matter where I sit.

 

3) In this song, a young girl tells her boyfriend she wants to be a movie star. What were your aspirations when you were in your late teens/early 20's? Did you realize them?

To become an engineer… yes.

 

4) The song was reportedly inspired in part by the relationship between popular British singer Cilla Black and her future husband. Cilla wanted him on the record label's payroll, so he became her road manager and driver. Have you ever worked for, or with, someone with whom you were romantically involved?

Nope… 

 

5) Although this Beatles song is credited to Lennon-McCartney, it was written mostly by Paul. He recalls showing up at John Lennon's house with the tune ready to go, and lyrics they both agreed were "crap." John gave Paul the car theme, and he took it from there. When has someone recently helped you out of a jam?

Well you all know I had my ID stolen and that a mole on my face is Basal cell carcinoma, well I was down in the dumps that week… all of sudden friends were stopping by. During my hard times, friends were there.

 

6) Paul also handles the lead vocals. When you hear a Beatles record, can you tell which band member is singing lead?

Nope.

7) When it was first released, this record got a lot of attention for the intricate guitar work by Paul and George Harrison. It's got a lot of percussion on it, too, including cowbell and tambourine. Have you ever played either cowbell or tambourine? (Do you think it sounds like fun?)

I can’t keep a beat and it is called Congenital Amusia, involving how the brain processes patterns.

8) Lava lamps were already popular in England but they weren't introduced to the United States until 1965. Today Walmart carries more than 20 different lava lamps. Have you ever owned one?

I must confess… I did. Back in my college days, along with black-light posters and incense.

 

9) Random question: Do you have a recurring dream?

I don’t even think that I dream. I don’t remember any when I wake up.

---

It is amazing—the difference from one side of the road to the other.

The wetlands are connected by a culvert under the road, yet my side is silent. While the other side has a whole choir of insects.

While on my side...

Mr. and Mrs. Duck are gone.

The bullfrogs are quiet.

There are no peepers.

Nothing but silence.

The Hydrilla.

 

The thick mats of the invasive Hydrilla has choked the life out of the wetlands. I enjoy watching the variety of life... no it is lifeless. 

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!