It Is About The Children

That has always been the rallying of the Republicans, way back with Anita Bryant and the "Save Our Children" campaign. And Harvey Milk standing up to their tyranny and now once  again we are fighting against the bigotry.

Children ‘low-hanging fruit’ in fight to end trans care, official at pro-Trump thinktank says

America First Policy Institute, which boasts close ties to president, discussed transgender policy ‘reform’ at DC event

The Guardian

Phoebe Petrovic

Fri 17 Apr 2026

Children are the “low-hanging fruit” in a longer effort to end gender-affirming care for all Americans, an official at a Trump administration-aligned thinktank recently said.

Bans on medical transition comprise just one part of the larger, unprecedented assault on transgender rights mounted by a coordinated campaign of mostly conservative activists and policymakers in the US in recent years. So far, these restrictions have primarily affected minors. But leaders in the emboldened movement have begun to more openly admit their desire to attempt to end gender-affirming care for adults, too.

But a judge the other day said that it was all based on junk medical research...

Federal Court Strikes Down Kennedy Declaration on Transgender Healthcare

JD Supra

April 20, 2026

On April 18, 2026, the United States District Court for the District of Oregon issued a sweeping opinion vacating the “Kennedy Declaration,” a directive issued by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in December 2025 without notice-and-comment rulemaking. The Kennedy Declaration purported to establish that transgender healthcare for minors falls below professionally recognized standards of health care and threatened providers with exclusion from Medicare and Medicaid. Opinion and Order, State of Oregon, et al. v. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., et al., No. 6:25-cv-02409-MTK (D. Oregon Apr. 18, 2026) (ECF 93).

The court granted summary judgment for the 22 Plaintiff States, vacated the Kennedy Declaration in its entirety, declared that HHS lacks authority to unilaterally establish standards of care superseding state-recognized standards, and permanently enjoined HHS and its Office of Inspector General (OIG) from implementing the Kennedy Declaration or any materially similar policy against any provider in the Plaintiff States.

This ruling delivers immediate, concrete protection to healthcare providers in Oregon, Washington, New York, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawai’i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin. The court’s opinion—notable for its extraordinarily pointed criticism of the administration’s conduct as causing “very real harm to very real people”—found the Kennedy Declaration unlawful on multiple grounds.

This is a big win... but you know darn well it will be appealed.

The court’s opinion is notable for its pointed criticism of this administration. The court was particularly scathing in addressing the administration’s claim that finding the Kennedy Declaration unlawful would infringe Secretary Kennedy’s First Amendment rights, stating that it would not allow defendants to “bully or gaslight this Court into ignoring the many procedural and legal flaws of the Kennedy Declaration by invoking one of the most sacred principles of our constitutional democracy—the freedom of speech—when that principle comes nowhere close to being implicated.” The court found that the actual principles offended were “the rule of law and state sovereignty.”

This is a very far reaching ruling... hopefully it will stand with appeals.

"Catering to the lowest common denominator"

"The implication is usually negative: it suggests lowering quality, depth, or standards so that everyone can understand or accept it, rather than aiming for something more thoughtful, complex, or refined."

Trump and the conservative attack on us is gear toward his MAGA base, it is designed to get them mad and out to vote. But they are only a small fraction of the voters, what does the rest of the voters think?

New Survey Finds Strong Majorities of Americans – Including Nearly All Major Religious Groups – Support Nondiscrimination Protections for LGBTQ People

PRRI (Public Religion Research Institute)

March 19, 2026

A new national survey released today by PRRI profiles LGBTQ Americans and tracks Americans’ views on LGBTQ rights across all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Based on interviews with more than 22,000 adults throughout 2025, this new data from the 2025 PRRI American Values Atlas measures public opinion on LGBTQ nondiscrimination protections, religiously based service refusals, and same-sex marriage. It also asks Americans if they agree that transgender Americans deserve the same rights and protections as other Americans.

The survey finds that strong majorities of Americans support nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ individuals (72%) and favor same-sex marriage (65%), although support for both measures has decreased slightly over the past three years (down from 80% and 69% in 2022, respectively). Roughly 6 in 10 Americans oppose allowing businesses to refuse service to LGBTQ people on religious grounds (59%, down from 65% in 2022).

Majorities of all major religious groups, except for Jehovah’s Witnesses, support nondiscrimination protections. Support ranges from 54% of white evangelical Protestants to 92% of Unitarian Universalists.

“Support for nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ Americans and same-sex marriage remains high, including among most people of faith,” said Melissa Deckman, Ph.D., CEO of PRRI. “At the same time, there have been slight declines in support for LGBTQ rights over the past few years, largely reflecting growing party polarization.”

Then why are the Republicans attacking us? Why do they want to criminalize us? Because for the voters it is not a make or break issue, while for the MAGA it is. And they know our Achilles heel is bathrooms.

While most Americans agree that transgender people deserve the same rights and protections as other Americans, the majority of Americans (56%) also favor laws that require transgender individuals to use bathrooms that correspond to their sex at birth, with 40% opposing such laws.

“We see a disconnect among many Americans between broadly opposing discrimination against transgender Americans and growing support for bathroom bills,” said Deckman. “Yet this increase in support for bathroom bills nationally is largely a function of strong movement among Republicans, whose support has nearly doubled in the past decade, from 44% in 2016 to 81% today.”

Where we need to do work?

In the past integration in schools helped us, when we were learning along side other it brought acceptance but now... the Trump adminstration now stopped enforcing the discrimination laws against us.

Support among young Americans ages 18-29 for nondiscrimination protections has decreased from 80% in 2015 to 70% in 2025, largely driven by a 24-point drop among young Republicans during this time (74% v. 50%). Support among older groups of Americans has stayed at similar rates over the past decade (among Americans aged 30-49) or increased among Americans aged 50 or older.

We need to turn that around, we need the support of our cis-gender peers!

A negative trend. I am on a LGBTQ+ speaker bureau and I have noticed that their engagement have dropped almost to zero. There are no laws here in Connecticut like in Florida that bans speaking on LGBTQ+ issues... it is only fear of complaints and it becoming a rallying point for local conservatives.

A Blue Heaven

We tend to think of the northeast as a liberal heaven but we are not homogenous there are pockets of conservatives here. Here in Connecticut it is the northeast corner of the state that sticks up it's red neck, So it should comes as no surprise that...

Transgender pride ribbons cut down in Pittsford; mayor calls act 'mean-spirited'

WHAM

by Daniel FinkelsteinFri,

April 17, 2026

Pittsford Village Mayor Alysa Plummer is asking for people to come forward with information about 63 ribbons, bearing the colors of the transgender pride flag, that were taken off of poles in the village, calling the act "mean-spirited" and "deliberate."

The nonprofit organization that put them there, Pittsford CommUNITY, raised concerns, saying they were supposed to remain until April 4.

"We put up ribbons for Transgender Day of Visibility," said Tharaha Thavakumar, president of Pittsford CommUNITY. "We received a permit. We applied for a permit in the village."

When volunteers returned to take them down, they were already gone.

"We found out that nobody in our group had taken them down, (and) we then went to the mayor and asked if she knew of any staff the village staff had taken it down," Thavakumar said. "They said no. And so that's when we decided to file a police report."

They have surveillance video of the culprit in a green hoodie and the town is asking for its citizens to check their video on the night in question.

"It's a sign of belonging," Thavakumar added. "When something like ribbons get taken down, it just tells people that we're not welcome here, which, you know, it's not just the transgender community, but anybody that's marginalized who feels like they don't belong."

And when the town backs us up... it makes us feel welcomed.

Get Your Birth Certificates Or Passport Out

Because under new regulation you will need it to open a bank account!!!! As the xenophobic Trump adminstration is sticking a citizenship requirement on your banking.

Is Citizenship Becoming The New Banking Requirement?

Forbes

ByVirginia La Torre Jeker, J.D.,

Apr 16, 2026,

A driver’s license and a utility bill have long been enough to open a bank account in the United States. That may not remain the case for much longer. There are growing indications that financial regulators are exploring whether citizenship or nationality should become part of the standard banking verification processes.

While no formal rule or guidance currently mandates such verification, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent indicated on April 15, speaking at the Invest in America Forum that an executive order requiring U.S. banks to verify the citizenship or nationality of account holders is currently in process. He noted that the measure is intended to align financial oversight with immigration enforcement and national security objectives.

I have to ask why? We already need a Social Security number... why a passport or birth certificate?

According to the U.S. Department of State, there were approximately 183 million valid U.S. passports in circulation in fiscal year 2025. In a country of more than 330 million people, this means a substantial portion of the population does not hold what is often the most readily accepted documentary evidence of U.S. citizenship in financial onboarding contexts. This creates what might be described as a “passport gap.”

What happens to existing bank accounts? Will they be closed? 

The Street wrote that,

Banks already carry the weight of extensive anti-money laundering and fraud detection obligations. Adding citizenship verification creates a new category of data with its own legal, privacy, and reputational dimensions. Institutions could find themselves caught between government mandates and customer backlash, particularly if the rule applies broadly to existing account holders.

[...]

The question of whether the executive order arrives narrowly targeted or broadly written will determine how disruptive this becomes. Either way, Bessent’s message to the banking sector was unambiguous: be ready.

And why does it have to be valid passport? Does your citizenship expire with your passport?

This is all about one thing... Trump & Company hatred of immigrants! There is no need to prove you are a citizen because non-citizens can open bank accounts all you need is a TIN. There is no federal law requiring you to be a citizen to bank!

The Bottom Line

[Editorial]

I believe what is motivating Trump right now is a golden medallion.

In the back of his mind, he is focused on the singular goal of being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. He may think that if he ends the war he helped create, he’ll finally get to grab the brass ring on the carousel.

He doesn’t care who or what gets in his way, after all, Obama got one. Trump believes this is his legacy. He has claimed that he "ended eight wars" and has been nominated for the prize multiple times; however, official nominations are kept secret for fifty years. For Trump, the prize isn’t just a byproduct of his policy... it is the primary benchmark of his success.

At a deep level, this is what I believe is truly driving him: his love of gold. But it begs the question: will he bring down the United States economy just for that brass ring?

[/Editorial]

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!

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.

 

 

Are We A Test?

I am not a very religious person, it is not that I am anti-religion but rather I believe it is more important in how you live your life and treat others that is important. So what I read this,

Nuns at Westchester nursing home say trans rules violate their religious rights

Gothamist

By Giulia Heyward

Apr 13, 2026

A Catholic nursing home in Westchester County is suing New York state, arguing that rules meant to protect transgender people in its care violate the religious freedom of the nurses who run it.

The Dominican Sisters of Hawthorne, who operate Rosary Hill Home, filed the lawsuit against Gov. Kathy Hochul and the state health department this month. They're challenging a mandate that long-term care facilities in New York give patients access to facilities — like bathrooms and hospital beds — that align with their gender identities rather than their sexes assigned at birth.

Staff at these long-term care facilities are also required to undergo cultural competency training under legislation Hochul signed into law three years ago. The lawsuit refers to that training as indoctrination, and further objects to rules that staff members use patients preferred pronouns, or "accommodate patients’ desire for extramarital relations.”

“The Dominican Sisters of Hawthorne and Rosary Hill Home operate in accordance with the ethical and religious directives and the teachings of the Catholic Church,” states the suit by the nursing facility, which provides pro bono care to patients with cancer. “They cannot comply with the mandate without violating these sincerely held religious beliefs.”

Yeah, yeah, I get the “religious freedom” stuff but when I was growing up I went to the Catholic Confraternity of Christian Doctrine classes, I don’t remember much but what I do remember is this… that one of the two greatest commandments is “Love your neighbor as yourself”

So I just can’t get my head around that these nuns seem to have forgotten that.

I wonder if those nuns thought that this might be a test?

"We the People of the United States..."

Mississippi, West Virginia, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Alabama are always at the bottom of the state rankings while Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Minnesota are always at the top.

One set of states has empathy for its citizens and one set doesn't.

One set of states cares about its citizens and one set doesn't.

One set of states believes in human rights, one set doesn't.

You want to guess what the state that are always on the top and the  states always on the bottom have in common?

The bottom dwellers are all Republicans and the cream is are all Democrats.

U.S. States: "General Welfare" Performance & Political Correlation (2026)

State	Political Lean	Current Ranking Stats	Why it holds this position
Massachusetts	Democratic	#1 Education, #1 Health Access	Universal healthcare, highest school funding, elite universities.
Minnesota	Democratic	#1 Quality of Life, #2 for Families	High social well-being, low poverty, Mayo Clinic healthcare hub.
Connecticut	Democratic	#2 Education, #3 Health Outcomes	High per-pupil spending, strong public health infrastructure.
New Jersey	Democratic	#1 Public Safety, #1 K-12 Quality	Strict school standards, high median income, public safety focus.
Vermont	Democratic	#1 Environment, Lowest Crime	Investment in clean energy, small class sizes, public safety.
Mississippi	Republican	Bottom 5 in Health, Education, Poverty	Minimal social safety net, low tax-base for schools.
West Virginia	Republican	Bottom 5 in Health, Infrastructure	Lowest life expectancy, struggling rural healthcare systems.
Louisiana	Republican	Bottom 5 in Poverty, Safety, Literacy	High inequality, low investment in early childhood programs.
Arkansas	Republican	Bottom 5 in Health Outcomes	High rates of chronic disease, limited healthcare access.

*Rankings based on consolidated 2025-2026 data across Education, Healthcare, and Poverty metrics.

But there is one other category that divides us...

What states are the most dangerous for LGBTQ+ people? Here are the worst 15

A lot of states are passing laws that target the LGBTQ+ community — but these 15 are the absolute worst.

LGBTQ Nation

Ryan Adamczeski

Dec 23, 2025

These are the 15 worst states for LGBTQ+ people

A lot of states are passing laws that target the LGBTQ+ community — but these 15 are the absolute worst.

Over 1,000 anti-LGBTQ+ laws have been proposed across every state legislature in the U.S. over the past two years, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, and 126 have passed into law. Less than two months into the 2025 legislative session, 390 laws targeting LGBTQ+ people have been proposed.

While marriage equality and anti-discrimination protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity are still guaranteed federally by U.S. Supreme Court rulings (for now), LGBTQ+ people are still concerned about their rights being taken away, especially when only 15 states have "shield laws" protecting access to gender-affirming care and abortion.

Based on laws surrounding marriage, family rights, health care, education, and youth collected by the Movement Advancement Project, here are the 15 worst states for LGBTQ+ people.

You have seen many of the names of the state in what I wrote above... Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.

If you take the Preamble to the Constitution as the mission statement* then the Republicans are...

1. Privatizing the Common Good: When education is shifted to vouchers and healthcare is left to the market, "Welfare" stops being "General" (for everyone) and becomes "Individual" (for those who can afford it).

2. The "Race to the Bottom": By cutting the federal standards that protected air, water, and labor, the country moves toward the "Swamp" model—where a state might be "open for business" but the citizens are breathing toxic air or working without a safety net.

3. Fiscal Neglect: In those bottom-ranked states, the government often claims they "can't afford" better schools or clinics while simultaneously giving tax breaks to the wealthy. On a national level, the 2026 Tariffs and Tax Cuts are creating a similar gap, where the public purse is emptied, leaving nothing to "promote" the well-being of the average person.

*I ask Gemini to write how the Republicans are meeting the goals in the Preamble to the Constitution

The Republicans are removing the very systems—the EPA, the Department of Education, Medicaid—that were built specifically to fulfill that mission. They are cutting education and healthcare while banning abortion and LGBTQ+ rights. We are moving backward toward the eras of Jim Crow and the Lavender Scare. By dismantling these systems, the federal government is essentially saying, "The mission statement is too expensive; let's just see what happens if we stop trying."

---

With all the changing anti-trans laws this booklet is more important than ever!

The Transgender Law Center puts out this booklet "Peeing in Peace" where,,,

This Resource Guide is a first of its kind publication combining basic information about how someone (or some group of someones) can protect themselves with common sense steps that can be taken to change the way in which an employer, school administrator, business  owner, or government official handles bathroom access issues. It provides basic tools you can use to affect how someone sees the issue of bathroom access and safety by questioning who should be able to access which bathroom and why we divide most public bathrooms into Men’s and Women’s facilities in the first place.

The Transgender Law Center receives numerous complaints each year from community members around the state about bathroom related harassment and discrimination. We also hear regularly from people who want to do something beyond responding to individual examples of discrimination in order to make bathrooms more accessible to everyone.

Started in 2003, our Safe Bathroom Access Campaign (SBAC) focuses on the real world problems that are created for transgender people and our partners, families and friends because of the way that society views gender and the stereotypes associated with it. Working closely with People in Search of Safe Restrooms (PISSR), SBAC has been able to open a dialogue in California about this important issue. Many of the lessons we have learned through that work and the solutions that we have helped to devise are encompassed in this resource guide. It is our hope that the hundreds of people who have contacted us about this issue since we opened our doors in 2002 will be able to take all or some of the information in this guide and share it with friends and allies who are also interested in challenging the current bathroom situation.

It is a sad cometary that we need a book like the Blacks needed back in the era of Jim Crow.