So Tell Me...

On this holiday weekend, stop and think for a moment about the direction our country is heading.

 

---

If the Constitution says one thing, can you write a law to do something other than what the Constitution says?

I think we would all say no... the Constitution is the ultimate authority. Then how come...

Trump's 'hero' justice offers roadmap after Supreme Court rejects birthright order
Speaker Mike Johnson, Sens. Rand Paul, Mike Lee and Tom Cotton are already weighing legislation and constitutional amendments
By Elaine Mallon Fox News
Published July 2, 2026

 

 

 President Donald Trump lost his Supreme Court bid to restrict birthright citizenship through executive order, but one of his own appointees may have handed Republicans a blueprint for pursuing much of the same goal through Congress.

Voting with the 6-3 majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed that Executive Order 14160, which restricts automatic citizenship to people born to U.S. citizens or permanent residents, couldn't take effect. But in a concurring opinion, he also pointed to a different path forward. Kavanaugh argued the court should have resolved the case under federal law rather than the Constitution, laying out a potential legislative path for Congress to pursue changes to birthright citizenship.

Okay, here is a justice of the Supreme Court saying to pass a law to override the Constitution. Meanwhile, a riskier solution is being offered: amend the Constitution. That is scary! That opens the path for all types of evil things.

 Kavanaugh said Trump couldn't use an executive order to change a law Congress had already passed, but instead suggested Congress could rewrite the law to limit birthright citizenship for children born to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily.

"Congress could — consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment—amend §1401(a) or otherwise enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country," he wrote.

I imagine that most people reading this are not lawyers, but tell me, do you see any wiggle room in this?

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

I don't know about you, but that is pretty straightforward. I don't see any "ifs," "ands," or "buts," nor any "howevers," "except for," or any other qualifiers. There is just no wiggle room. It says what it says: "all persons"!

 

The qualifier that says "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is undeniably true for all undocumented immigrants. The very fact that they are sitting in detention facilities proves that they are subject to the authority of ICE and CBP.

The other option is the Constitutional amendment route, and I find that to be the scary part. They want to pass an amendment limiting the Constitutional rights we now have! Think about that.

Once you have a Constitutional Convention, the floodgates are opened... I can see a party trying to stick in an amendment to limit abortions! I can see an amendment limiting our rights as trans people! After all, if they opened the convention to limit immigrants' rights, what's to stop them from adding to their list of "evil things"? It could become a vehicle for highly polarizing social issues.

They need 38 states to pass an amendment and 34 to call a convention... and they already have 23 solid Republican states!

 

BREAKING NEWS: A Tale Of Two Courts

One that uphold the Constitution and one that worms its way around the Constitutional question!

First the upholding of the Constitution...

Supreme Court rejects Trump’s attempt to limit birthright citizenship

The Trump administration sought to upend the historical understanding of the 14th Amendment  which has long been interpreted to extend birthright citizenship broadly.

NBC News

By Lawrence Hurley

June 30, 2026

The Supreme Court on Tuesday blocked President Donald Trump’s contentious attempt to limit citizenship at birth for those born on U.S. soil, delivering a major blow to his agenda.

The court, divided 6-3, ruled that the executive order Trump issued Jan. 20, 2025, the first day of his second term, was unlawful. Five justices said the order fell foul of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which has long been interpreted to bestow birthright citizenship on almost anyone born in the United States.

One justice, conservative Brett Kavanaugh, said the order violated federal law but not the Constitution.

Here is the Amendment...

AMENDMENT XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Do you see any qualifiers is the amendment?

Questions are undocumented immigrants being arrested and going to trial? The answer is "Yes" so therefore they are subject to the laws of the United States... Period. No "buts" nor "ifs"  But somehow three Supreme Court justice see words that are not written in the amendment. They say,

Three conservatives would have ruled in Trump’s favor, saying that the 14^th Amendment  would allow his executive order: Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch.

In dissent, Thomas wrote that the 14th Amendment was primarily aimed at formerly enslaved Black people.

“Blacks were entitled to citizenship because they were Americans. They had no other homeland, owed no allegiance to any foreign power, and were subject to no other authority,” he wrote. “The same could not be said for the children of foreign temporary visitors.”

Bull S**t! In 1886 the Supreme Court ruled that in the case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins that the 14^th Amendment did apply to other people besides Blacks. The case of Truax v. Raich in 1915 rules the Supreme Court struck it down, holding that lawful resident aliens are "persons" protected by the Equal Protection Clause.

So the conservatives justices cherry picked their case for rebuttal!

The Fourteenth Amendment also covers equal treatment. In another NBC article they write,

The court, largely divided 6-3, ruled against two transgender students, Becky Pepper-Jackson and Lindsay Hecox, who had challenged restrictive laws in West Virginia and Idaho, respectively.

The court in an opinion authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh concluded that the laws do not violate either the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which requires that the law apply evenly to everyone, or Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which bars sex discrimination in education.

“The Constitution and Title IX do not require an overhaul of women’s and girls’ sports throughout America,” Kavanaugh wrote.

He expressed sympathy for transgender girls and women who desire to play sports, saying “their desire to compete warrants respect” and that they should not be “ostracized or vilified.”

But they did!

It is the latest in a string of defeats for transgender people at the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority.

In the cases the Supreme Court justices in the cases of cases, West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox ruled that 14th Amendment to the Constitution, nor Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 apply to trans people. In their ruling they only looked the central legal question under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was whether laws that separate athletic participation based on biological sex unlawfully deny transgender girls equal protection.

Okay you get that? The question before the court wasn't if trans people were being discriminated against but rather if the law that the separation of athletic participation based on biological sex is Constitutional.  And to that I have to agree... however, the court did not answer the question if we can play sports in our true gender. That question still hasn't been answered.

There is also some hope in that it only applies to states with the bans. Not to states like Connecticut that allows trans sports. It does not effect all the states just the states that ban us.

So the the question if we can play in our true genders have not been answered.

They Have No Guts

I was reading an article in the Christian Science Monitor about how Trump has warped the presidency.

In Washington, a profound shift in how taxpayer money is spent. Will it last?

By Caitlin Babcock 

May 28, 2026

Just about anything a president wants to do – such as go to war, start an infrastructure project, or strengthen law enforcement – requires financing from Congress.

But increasingly, the government’s money hasn’t been going where Congress says it should.

The Trump administration is using unprecedented tactics to test the boundaries of how it can control taxpayer money that Congress has budgeted, threatening one of Congress’ core functions under the Constitution – and one of its strongest checks on executive power.

The efforts are a direct assertion of presidential power, often wielded in the name of taming wasteful spending. But the actions also reach into Congress itself.

Under presidential pressure, Congress is slowly upending its own spending process, passing party-line bills that circumvent its normal, bipartisan procedure and give presidents broader leeway. For example, Republicans hope to soon pass a bill that will fund federal immigration enforcement for years in advance.

But this is the result of a Congress that has no backbone. What we need is to elect people who listen to the voters and not to Trump. I don't even call it the "Republican party" anymore because it is non-existent.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the U.S. Constitution states: "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law." This and the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 both make illegal what Trump is doing. But if the Republicans in Congress ignore the laws, Trump becomes a dictator... a King!

Still, the practice signals a profound shift in how money is spent, raising questions over how or whether taxpayers can hold the government accountable and whether more White House control over spending will become a “new normal” that permanently expands a president’s power.

In Congress, even some members of President Trump’s party aren’t entirely comfortable with the transfer of spending authority.

“Retaining our constitutional authority has always been something that I see as important, and hopefully my colleagues do, too. So I hope that we maintain a balance,” says Republican Rep. Dan Newhouse of Washington, who sits on the House Appropriations Committee. “Or else we become more and more irrelevant.”

Why can this happen? The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 was passed specifically because President Richard "Tricky Dick" Nixon kept refusing to spend money that Congress had allocated for programs he disliked. Congress stepped in to say, "No, if we pass it and appropriate the funds, you must spend it."

But this is happening because it takes a two-thirds majority to convict him. The House only needs a simple majority to impeach him, but the Senate needs a two-thirds vote to convict. As a result, Trump can get away with all the stuff he has been pushing.

Mr. Trump and his executive branch have asserted the power to spend as well as to cut, in ways that Congress hasn’t authorized. Emergency declarations over immigration and energy paved the way for sending military reservists to the Southern border and promoting fossil fuel development.

Trump knows that he has instilled a fear of losing their reelections that keeps them prostrating themselves to him. But he is losing his grip on them with his polling numbers in the 30s. Some of them smell blood in the polls and want to see who to hitch their wagon to: Trump or the voters?

The Constitution. What's That?

For Trump & Company losing in court is starting to get them mad. So what do they do... use the tactics that Trump developed with his businesses! The Trump administration has developed it to an art form the appealing, delaying compliance with, sought to circumvent court orders they disagreed with, or failed to fully comply with court orders.

Trump flexes executive power with unprecedented flouting of lower court rulings

AP News

By  SUDHIN THANAWALA

May 2, 2026

When a federal judge shot down a Trump administration policy of holding immigrants without bond last December, it seemed like a serious blow to the president’s mass deportation effort.

Instead, a top Justice Department official insisted the ruling wasn’t binding, and the administration continued denying detainees around the country a chance for release.

By February, the district court judge, Sunshine Sykes, was fed up. Sykes, a nominee of President Joe Biden, accused Trump officials in a ruling that month of seeking “to erode any semblance of separation of powers,” adding that they could “only do so in a world where the Constitution does not exist.”

Hardly isolated, the case illustrates a broader pattern of defiance of lower court decisions in President Donald Trump’s second term.

[...]

In the second Trump administration’s first 15 months in office, district court judges ruled it was violating an order in at least 31 lawsuits over a wide range of issues, including mass layoffs, deportations, spending cuts and immigration practices, the AP’s review of court records found. That’s about one out of every eight lawsuits in which courts have at least temporarily blocked the administration’s actions.

Why can he get away with thumbing his nose at the courts... simply the Republicans in Congress do not have a backbone, and they let Trump walk all over the Constitution!

Scripps News Service reported...

The Republican administration's power struggle with federal courts — which is testing basic tenets of U.S. democracy — reflects an expansive view of executive authority that has also challenged the independence of federal agencies, a president’s ethical obligations, and the U.S.’s role in the international order.

Judges find widespread noncompliance

The violations in the 31 lawsuits are in addition to more than 250 instances of noncompliance judges have recently highlighted in individual immigration petitions — from failing to return property to keeping immigrants locked up past court-ordered release dates.

Who is going investigate the charges... the DOJ? Ha! Trump has them wrapped around his little finger!

And now... can you believe this? They want to do away with one of most basic Constitutional rights! The right to be heard in court... habeas corpus! This goes father back than the Constitution, it goes back be traced to medieval English law! To the Magna Carta in 1215 and back to even 1066 and Anglo-Saxon England.

The Trump adminstration has a problem with that!

Frustrated by Courts, Trump Weighed Suspending a Constitutional Right

Secret memos show that the White House debated last year, to a greater degree than previously known, whether to limit habeas corpus rights for undocumented immigrants.

The New York Times

By Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan

June 15, 2026

Last spring, Will Scharf, an arch-conservative lawyer serving as the White House staff secretary, wrote a secret memo to the chief of staff that reflected growing unease in the West Wing about one of the extreme measures being weighed by Stephen Miller, the powerful adviser driving President Trump’s deportation campaign.

Dated April 29, 2025, and stamped “confidential,” the memo was careful and lawyerly but amounted to a warning against end-running the rule of law. The subject line read: “THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.”

[...]

The suspension of habeas corpus has occurred just a handful of times in U.S. history, and always under the most dire circumstances of war or invasion. Yet to a greater degree than previously known, administration officials, encouraged by Mr. Trump, actively weighed taking that step in the early months of his second term — this time to accelerate the mass deportation of immigrants in the country illegally.

Hey! Forget about the laws that get in our way... this is the president!

The International Business Times UK (Why does it seems like on the NYT and foreign media are the ones only carrying this?) reports,

Donald Trump's second White House seriously explored suspending a core constitutional protection to speed mass deportations and curb protests, according to newly disclosed internal memos written in Washington in 2025 by senior staff secretary Will Scharf. The confidential documents, detailed in reporting for the forthcoming book Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump, show that aides weighed using both the suspension of habeas corpus and the Insurrection Act as tools against unauthorised immigrants and demonstrators.

The revelations trace back to the early months of Trump's second term, after his emphatic 2024 election win emboldened a hard-line immigration drive from the Oval Office. Stephen Miller, restored as one of the most powerful figures in the West Wing, was again pressing sweeping measures to accelerate deportations and sideline the courts that had frustrated the first Trump administration. What had previously sounded like late-night cable talk was being turned into draft policy, routed through a small circle of loyalists and sceptics.

They knew that this was a bad idea, why else keep it secret?

It has historically been held that only Congress can suspend it, a precedent famously tested during the Civil War when President Abraham Lincoln suspended it and was rebuked by Chief Justice Roger Taney in the case Ex parte Merryman. But given this Congress's fear of Trump, I doubt very much that they would do anything to stop him!

---

They are also ignoring maritime law;

To rebuild trust in maritime policy, the US must ratify the Law of the Sea

The Hill

by Andrew D. Thaler,

 06/15/26 

Alone in the middle of the Caribbean Sea, somewhere off the coast of Dominica, in the dead of night with no lights to guide me, I swam. With no motor, no radio, and a hull filling quickly in the rough chop, our little dinghy no longer offered safety. The currents would soon pull us far offshore, a tiny speck in the endless sea. We chose to abandon ship. 

[...]

There is a trust among mariners — trust that in our worst moments we cast aside whatever grievances divide us to offer aid. Our struggle is, first and foremost, against the sea. 

This duty to render aid to mariners in distress is codified in the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. 

On Sept. 2, 2025, the U.S. attacked an unidentified vessel in international waters, and then attacked again as at least two sailors clung to the wreckage of their small boat. Over the next eight months, the U.S. would strike more than 60 small vessels, killing over 200 sailors. None of these sailors have ever been conclusively identified as narco-terrorists, though several were found to have no connection to Latin American drug trade. These were not enemy combatants — they were but men clinging to upturned hulls in a vast and unforgiving sea.

But this is the Trump adminstration, and they don't follow the law.

Is This A Casus Belli

The Trump administration is looking for novel ways to rake the trans community over the coals. Now, they are trying to use our own protections against us!

WA’s transgender prisoner policy is target of new federal investigation

The U.S. Department of Justice inquiry follows a lawsuit from a prisoner in the state’s women’s prison who alleged a transgender woman attacked her there.

The Washington State Standard
By: Jake Goldstein-Street

May 19, 2026

The Trump administration on Tuesday launched an investigation into Washington state’s practice of housing transgender women in its women’s prison. 

In a letter to Gov. Bob Ferguson, the U.S. Department of Justice cited allegations that the Washington Corrections Center for Women in Gig Harbor has “failed to protect female prisoners from sexual and physical violence, harassment, voyeurism, and intimidation from male prisoners who identify as female.”

The Justice Department argued this could violate the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution’s protections against cruel and unusual punishment. Washington’s state constitution also prohibits cruel conditions specifically for prisoners.

A state Department of Corrections spokesperson said the agency was notified of the investigation Tuesday morning and plans to cooperate with the Department of Justice.

“DOC remains committed to upholding the rights and providing a safe environment for all incarcerated individuals in our custody,” spokesperson Chris Wright said.

The women’s prison currently holds 20 transgender prisoners, while there are 347 transgender or non-binary individuals held across all state prisons, Wright said.

As I wrote this morning... the federal government doesn't get to determine gender; the states do!

The inquiry follows a lawsuit filed last month against the state by a woman held at the Gig Harbor women’s prison, alleging a transgender woman physically attacked her. The woman alleged several other transgender women were held at the prison. 

KUOW reported that,

According to a letter from the DOJ's Civil Rights Division to Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson Tuesday, the investigation is based on information that the state “failed to protect female prisoners from sexual and physical violence, harassment, voyeurism, and intimidation” from transgender women within prison facilities.

In late April, a woman in the prison near Gig Harbor and a nonprofit sued the state Department of Corrections after she said she was attacked by a trans inmate. The DOJ's letter does not directly mention the ongoing lawsuit.

“Washington State must protect women inmates from the inherent dangers of incarcerating them with biological men,” Interim U.S. Attorney Neil Floyd for the Western District of Washington said in a press release. “Our Constitution protects the civil rights of every American, including woman who are in prison and forced by the State of Washington to live with male inmates.”

So  my push back... you mean that there were no other assaults in that prison? I don't know the number but I bet it was more than one, so what this attack so special? Go after the real problem, assaults in prison!

What the Republicans are doing is trying to justify overruling a judge.

Federal judge again blocks Trump from moving trans women into men’s prisons

Judge Royce C. Lamberth extended emergency protections after transgender women in federal custody detailed alleged sexual violence and abuse in men’s facilities.

The Advocate

Christopher Wiggins

May 20, 2026

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has again blocked the Trump administration from transferring transgender women in federal custody into men’s prisons, extending emergency protections in a lawsuit that has become one of the country’s most significant legal fights over the treatment of transgender prisoners under President Donald Trump’s second administration.

See! They are trying to use the Washington incident to wave in front of the judge... meanwhile we are getting raped in the men's prisons!

The ruling marks the latest turn in a case that began in January 2025 after three transgender women incarcerated in federal prisons sued the administration over Trump’s executive order mandating that the federal government recognize only sex assigned at birth. The order directed the attorney general to ensure that “males are not detained in women’s prisons” and sought to prohibit federal funding for gender-affirming care in custody.

See! They are trying to wave the Washington incident in front of the judge... meanwhile, we are being raped in men's prisons!

The fact that we are being raped doesn't matter to Trump's cronies; they are only interested in keeping their base riled up. All it will take is one Trump-appointed judge to flip the others!

A Constitutional Tug-of-War

In Congress, the Republicans have introduced H.R. 2616, the “Stopping Indoctrination and Protecting Kids Act”—or as we know it, “Don’t Say Trans.” The bill is modeled after Florida’s "Don’t Say Gay" laws. The U.S. House Republicans wrote:

House Republicans Advance Bill to Protect Children from Gender Ideology in Schools

Washington, May 20, 2026

House Republicans are advancing H.R. 2616 – Stopping Indoctrination and Protecting Kids Act, legislation led by Education and Workforce Committee Chairman Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) to require parental consent before schools make major changes involving a child’s name, pronouns, gender markers, bathrooms, or locker rooms.

So I got to thinking: where in the Constitution does it give the federal government the right to determine the gender of a child? And when the feds say “Biological Sex,” who gets to determine it?

(A caveat first: I am not a lawyer, so this is all conjecture on my part. As a lawyer friend I know likes to say… it's not over until the judge bangs his gavel.)

Article I, Section 8 (Enumerated Powers): This section defines the specific powers of Congress, such as regulating interstate commerce, coining money, and declaring war. States cannot create laws that interfere with these federal powers.

That is key to my argument. One of those realities of Enumerated Powers is that the federal government does not issue birth certificates—states do!

They are trying to worm around the Enumerated Powers. If you look closely at the text of H.R. 2616, it doesn't outright ban schools from changing a child's pronouns; instead, it says schools will lose federal funding under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act if they do so without parental consent. This is how the federal government asserts control without having the explicit constitutional right to dictate local education policy—it holds the purse strings hostage.

But I think that it still boils down to: who determines the gender of a child? If the states say the child is female, how can the feds challenge it? By requiring every child to get a DNA test?

No matter how they word it, the Constitution does not give the federal government the right to determine a child’s gender. This is going to be a long, drawn-out court battle!

When major constitutional battles break out over federalism, executive power, and states' rights, it is rarely just an abstract debate in a courtroom. In this case, the "pawns" being pushed across the board are real people whose daily lives, legal identities, and peace of mind are completely disrupted by changing political tides.

Historically, marginalized groups have frequently found themselves at the center of these structural tug-of-wars between state and federal power. Whether it was the fight over civil rights in the 1960s or same-sex marriage in the 2000s, the legal system often treats human lives as the testing ground for where federal authority ends and state sovereignty begins. And now, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 itself is being attacked.

It is a deeply exhausting place to be, especially when all people are looking for is stability, recognition, and the ability to go about their daily lives without their foundational identity documents being treated as a political football.

---

This all makes sense only if you ignore the mountain of medical and scientific research showing that gender identity and sexual orientation are inborn to a person and are not choices. Change the target to any other protected class besides gender identity, and you can see this bill for what it really is: bigotry and discrimination.

Birth Certificates!

Who issues birth certificates?

Last Tuesday, I wrote about the federal investigation involving Smith College, and it left me thinking more broadly about how identity is defined in law. In the United States, birth certificates are issued by the states, not the federal government. That raises a constitutional question worth unpacking: where in the Constitution is the federal government given authority to define sex or gender for legal purposes?

The Trump administration has said that passports will reflect sex assigned at birth only. But that raises several questions. First, in states like Connecticut, birth records are maintained by the state and are not typically accessible as a simple personal document in the same way a driver’s license is. So how would federal agencies determine “birth sex” in practice? For many people, the passport itself may already be the primary federal identity document.

Second, the Constitution does not explicitly grant the federal government a general power to define a person’s sex or gender across all legal contexts. Historically, federal agencies have relied on state-issued birth certificates and other identity documents when administering programs, including passport issuance through the United States Department of State.

Third, executive actions, such as orders addressing how federal agencies recognize sex categories and raise an important legal question. Even if the federal government sets internal definitions for its own programs, does that override or displace state-issued identity records? In my view, this raises a broader federalism issue: states traditionally control vital records, while the federal government operates within enumerated powers.

When federal agencies adopt definitions that differ from state-issued birth certificates, the question becomes whether that authority comes from a valid constitutional or statutory source, or whether it exceeds the federal government’s enumerated powers. I believe that the authority to define and record vital identity information should remain primarily with the states. The federal government can only allow M&F and not an X on forms, etc. but they have to go by state determination of gender

When arguments turn to biology, chromosomes, or other medical criteria to define sex for legal purposes, it raises further questions about where that authority is grounded in the Constitution. The federal government is not granted a general police power over identity classification.

So to sum it up:

• States control vital records (like birth certificates).
• The federal government has only enumerated powers under the United States Constitution.
• The federal government generally does not have a general police power over identity definitions.
• Under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people.

The First Amendment Be...

[Editorial]

...Damned!

Why is that it seems like the Republicans hates the 1st Amendment? They want to tell you which books to read, what television shows to watch, and now what colors to paint the fence!

A Florida city fined a lesbian couple over a rainbow fence. Now they’re suing

The ACLU says Key West selectively enforced the city code after the women painted their fence in rainbow colors to protest the removal of Pride crosswalks.

The Advocate

Jacob Ogles

May 08, 2026

Many Key West residents protested Florida’s removal of a rainbow crosswalk by painting their fences in the same colors, only to be met with city fines. Now, a federal lawsuit backed by the American Civil Liberties Union challenges that punishment on First Amendment grounds.

Coley Sohn and Linda Bagley-Sohn repainted 12 pickets at their Old Town home, inspiring similar protests throughout the city. But code complaints with the city prompted Key West officials to cite the lesbian couple, with the threat of $250 fines each day until the fence was repainted white.

What? What? You mean the city has a law on what color you can paint your fence? It looks like that you can paint your any color as long as it is white!

Sohn and Bagley-Sohn applied to the city in December for a permit to paint the fence pickets rainbow colors, but the city, in February, determined the display violated the code because the fence was no longer painted in an approved color.

This might be a hard case to sue except for the fact that they are only enforcing the rainbow colors. NBC News 6 in South Florida writes that,

Their attorney, Nick Warren of the ACLU of Florida, argues the city’s actions amount to unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.

“If you walk around Old Town Key West, you’ll see lots of colorful displays and different colored paints on fences and houses,” Warren said. “Many of them violate the same rules that the city is citing — but if the city is only enforcing the law against some people because of the message they’re expressing, that’s viewpoint discrimination.”

Sohn said the couple believes they have the right to express themselves.

“We have the right, as anyone else does, to protest what they want to protest,” she said. “If the powers that be don’t agree with what we’re protesting, it doesn’t mean they can silence us.”

That shoots holes in the city argument... it seems that they are only enforcing the law for "The Rainbow!"

[/Editorial] 

Are The Republicans Dyslexic?

[Editorial]

One of the primary challenges people with dyslexia face is that their brains may unintentionally add or omit words while reading. It seems many Republicans are suffering from a similar affliction.

The War Powers Act clearly states that a 60-day clock (with a possible 30-day withdrawal period) is triggered when U.S. forces are introduced into “hostilities” or situations where hostilities are imminent. Nowhere does the law state that a ceasefire, pause, or reduction in fighting resets or stops that timer. Yet, somehow, Republicans have read a "pause" button into the text, arguing that the clock resets during a ceasefire.

They are seeing words that simply aren't there. It is much like their stance on protesters carrying weapons; they have effectively added a silent exception to the Second Amendment that only applies when it suits their narrative.

The First Amendment is explicit:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Despite this, Hegseth and Trump act as though they can ignore these constitutional limits. They have restricted press access to the military, threatened the licenses of broadcast stations, and seized reporters' notes. Now, they claim to have found an "on/off" switch buried deep within the War Powers Act.

Regardless of their claims, this war will continue. They are fighting for "wiggle room" when what they truly need isn't measured in days or weeks, but months.

The British Guardian reported that,

However, the Trump administration has repeatedly rejected the deadline, with Pete Hegseth, the defense secretary, testifying before a heated Senate armed services committee that the ceasefire agreement reached with Iran more than three weeks ago “means the 60-day clock pauses, or stops”.

Hegseths’s comments reflect what a senior Trump administration official told the Guardian earlier: “For war powers resolution purposes, the hostilities that began on Saturday, February 28, have terminated,” the official said.

This follows a bizarre statement from the Trump administration about the war being over:

Trump administration says Iran war ‘terminated’ before 60-day deadline for congressional approval

The statement furthers an argument Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth laid out during testimony before the Senate earlier Thursday.

MS Now

May. 1, 2026,

By The Associated Press  and Emily Hung

The Trump administration is arguing that the war in Iran has already ended because of the ceasefire that began in early April, an interpretation that would allow the White House to avoid the need to seek congressional approval.

The statement furthers an argument Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth laid out during testimony before the Senate earlier Thursday, when he said the ceasefire effectively paused the war. Under that rationale, the administration has not yet met the requirement mandated by a 1973 law to seek formal approval from Congress for military action that extends beyond 60 days.

A senior administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the administration’s position, said for purposes of that law, “the hostilities that began on Saturday, Feb. 28 have terminated.” The official said the U.S. military and Iran have not exchanged fire since the two-week ceasefire that began April 7.

An administration official did not immediately respond to MS NOW’s question about what would happen if either side breaks the ceasefire.

While the ceasefire has since been extended, Iran maintains its chokehold on the Strait of Hormuz, and the U.S. Navy is maintaining a blockade to prevent Iran’s oil tankers from getting out to sea.

Under the War Powers Resolution, the law that sought to constrain a president’s military powers, President Donald Trump had until Friday to seek congressional authorization or cease fighting. The law also allows an administration to extend that deadline by 30 days.

Despite the clear intent of the law, it seems certain that a Republican-controlled Congress will simply ignore the statutes and do as they please.

[/Editorial]

---

Updated: 5/2 @ 7AM

There he goes again put in words that are not there! Nowhere in the law does it say anything about a cease fire! There is no such thing as a time out in the law!

Pentagon calls timeout on War Powers

Axios

Hans Nichols

April 30, 2026

Senate Republicans are calling on the Trump administration to clarify how it is interpreting the 60-day clock under the War Powers Act in its military campaign against Iran.

Why it matters: The 60-day deadline, depending on who's counting, is arriving on requiring the president to seek authorization or wind down operations. The first strikes against Iran were on Feb. 28.

• But Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth offered a different view during testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, suggesting the clock can "pause or stop" during a ceasefire.

Zoom in: Republicans, including some who have flirted with supporting a war powers resolution, appeared open to Hegseth's interpretation.

• "It sounds like there's some wiggle room he provided there for himself," Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.) told reporters. "We'll take a look at whatever they send over."
• "Presumably, they will communicate that in a formal way," Young added. "They have, in a very careful way, followed the War Powers Act so far."
• "I imagine the administration will send us some sort of formal notification saying, 'Here's where we think we are under the War Powers,'" Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) said. "Either we want 30 more days, or we don't think we need additional time because of X, Y, Z."

The other side: Democrats sharply rejected Hegseth's argument.

• "A ceasefire means bombs aren't dropping," Sen. Tim Kaine ((D-Va.) said. "It doesn't mean there are no hostilities. If we're using the U.S. military to blockade everything going into and out of Iran, that's still hostility."
• "That answer showed they know they've got a 60-day problem, and they're trying to come up with a rationale to get around it," Kaine added.

To paraphrase "A League Of Their Own," there's no crying in War”  Obey the freaking law! 

Another Nail

Trump & Company are trying once again to put a nail in our coffin. And the 2^nd Amendment be damned!

Trump administration is trying to make it harder for trans people to buy guns

The controversy comes amid reports that trans Americans have been increasingly arming themselves as protection against the Trump administration.

LGBTQ Nation

Molly Sprayregen (She/Her)

April 27, 2026

The Trump administration is reportedly continuing to engage in efforts to prevent trans people from owning guns, or at least intimidate them into changing their minds.

The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) confirmed to the Independent that it is still working to update its policies in conjunction with the president’s executive order declaring there are only two innate sexes – male and female.

[...]

Most concerning for many trans advocates is the plan to alter ATF Form 4473, the Firearms Transaction Record that all applicants must fill out, so that folks must list their sex assigned at birth.

For trans people who have a different gender listed on other legal documents, the shift could both cause bureaucratic confusion and put their safety at risk, as the administration would more easily be able to identify trans gun owners by finding people whose sex on various legal forms contradict one another.

The Republicans are supposed to be pro-Second Amendment, but as usual, it is only lip service! The Trump administration has been stoking endless fear about the “dangers” the trans community poses to others, including false claims that trans people are more likely to commit mass shootings.

The British newspaper The Independent wrote that,

Such a rule would make it easier for ATF to gather lists of trans gun owners, simply by identifying where names appear to conflict with the listed sex, according to firearms policy experts.

It could also deter trans people from buying guns legally, since complying with paperwork would create a “Catch 22” situation — and a false statement comes with the threat of federal charges and prison time, the experts said.

"Just the announcement is going to have a chilling effect," Patrick G. Eddington, a senior fellow in homeland security and civil liberties at the Cato Institute, told The Independent.

The Second Amendment says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" it sure does sound that our rights are being infringed upon!

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.

"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.

Ultimatum!... Now What?

What happens when you throw down the glove and nothing happens? Then what do you do?

Trump makes SAVE America Act ultimatum

By Thérèse Boudreaux

The Center Square

Mar 9, 2026

Pressure from the Trump administration is mounting on Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., to revive old filibuster rules and ensure the passage of Republicans’ elections reform bill.

In multiple social media posts, President Donald Trump promoted “using the Filibuster, or Talking Filibuster, in order to pass THE SAVE AMERICA ACT, an 88% issue with ALL VOTERS,” adding that the bill “supersedes everything else.” 

Trump also vowed to “not sign other Bills until this is passed,” with the exception of the last fiscal year 2026 appropriations bill funding the Department of Homeland Security.

But you know what… Trump may have shot himself in the foot! He may not have thought it through. In many cases, by not signing a bill it becomes law after 10 days (Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution).

And now the House is putting in its two cents.

House Republicans Give GOP Senators Ultimatum Over SAVE America Act

Newsweek

By Mandy Taheri

Mar 14, 2026

GOP Representative Anna Paulina Luna issued an on-air ultimatum to Senate Majority Leader John Thune, saying on Fox News’ Saturday in America the House would block Senate legislation unless the chamber debated and voted on The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act.

The Florida Republican had made a similar ultimatum on X on Friday, as had Representative Brandon Gill, a Texas Republican, who noted that Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding should be exempt.

“I’ll be voting ‘no’ on all Senate bills - other than DHS funding - until the Senate passes the SAVE America Act,” he wrote on X on Friday.

Okay, what are the Republican options? What happens if the Democrats in the Senate dig their heels in? Does the government come to a grinding halt? Let’s look at Trump first.

If he doesn't sign any bills, what happens to them? Well, it depends.

If he does nothing, under certain circumstances the bill becomes law after ten days, as described in the Constitution. But… you always know that politicians leave wiggle room.

A pocket veto: If Congress adjourns before the 10-day window ends, then the bill dies automatically and Congress cannot override it.

His third option is to simply veto it outright.

Then the Senate also has what is called the nuclear option; the repeal of the filibuster. But that has some serious side effects for the Senate.

So will they repeal the filibuster rule? If they do, it will do exactly what its nickname implies. Right now it means that most major bills need bipartisan support to pass. If repealed, a party could cram through bills like voting laws, immigration reforms, healthcare changes, and environmental legislation.

But when Congress changes parties, all that legislation could be undone.

MS Now wrote,

“The SAVE Act is Jim Crow 2.0,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in an online statement responding to Trump’s ultimatum. “It would disenfranchise tens of millions of people. If Trump is saying he won’t sign any bills until the SAVE Act is passed, then so be it: There will be total gridlock in the Senate.”

The New York Democrat concluded, “Senate Democrats will not help pass the SAVE Act under any circumstances.”

So what happens when their ultimatum fails?

The First Amendment. What's That?

This is what authoritarian governments do... like Putin's, like Orbán's. Control the media, control the messaging, control the propaganda!

Trump administration threatens news outlets over critical coverage of Iran

FCC chair says news outlets that share ‘distortions’ about US war with Iran could lose their licences.

Al Jazeera

By Brian Osgood

14 Mar 2026

The administration of President Donald Trump has warned that news outlets could have their broadcasting licences revoked over critical reporting on the war against Iran, accusing the media of “distortions”.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr said in a social media post on Saturday that broadcasters must “operate in the public interest”, or else lose their licences.

“Broadcasters that are running hoaxes and news distortions — also known as the fake news — have a chance now to correct course before their license renewals come up,” Carr wrote.

The warning was the latest apparent threat from Carr, who has repeatedly attracted scrutiny for statements that appear to pressure broadcasters to conform with Trump priorities.

Despots need to control the messaging!

Carr’s latest statement prompted swift condemnation from politicians and free-speech advocates, who likened his remarks to censorship.

“This is a clear directive to provide positive war coverage or else licenses may not be renewed,” Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii wrote.

“This is worse than the comedian stuff, and by a lot. The stakes here are much higher. He’s not talking about late night shows, he’s talking about how a war is covered.”

Why what is Trump hiding? His ineptitude?

USA Today wrote,

Carr recently urged broadcast companies to air “patriotic, pro-America content” as part of programming aligned with the country's 250th anniversary.

MSN...

Trump calls 'lowlife' media 'sick and demented' over Iran war coverage

KCBD writes that,

The Trump administration denounced CNN on Thursday for airing a portion of the new Iranian supreme leader’s public statement, the second time in three days that he’s targeted the network for reporting on how the regime is responding to the American attacks.

The attack illustrated the care news outlets must take in reporting during wartime, and the responsibilities of American journalists to report the perspective of countries its government views as enemies. It also exposed inconsistencies. The message of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei during his first public statement since he succeeded his father, who was killed in an Israeli air strike, was widely available elsewhere.

The White House said on social media that “fake news CNN just aired four straight minutes of uninterrupted Iranian state TV, run by the same psychotic and murderous regime that prided itself on brutally slaughtering Americans for 47 years.”

Question: How can it be fake news when they are showing him speaking? Is Trump saying it is AI like the stuff he puts out? He must think that because he does everyone is doing it?

What does he want? Coverage like it was during the Stalin era in Russia?

It Couldn't be Any Plainer

But the Republicans seem to have a problem reading English... you kind of think it their second language!

You see their main language is "Newspeak"!

Fourteenth Amendment

Section 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Okay do you see any asterisks there? Neither do I.

All persons born, that seem pretty straight forward, there are exceptions listed the only qualification is that they are subject to our laws. Note: ambassadors, embassy staff, and family members are not subject to our laws!

But the Trump adminstration keeps adding words to it... you know part of that "Newspeak" stuff!

Supreme Court agrees to decide constitutionality of Trump's plan to end birthright citizenship

CBS News

By Melissa Quinn

December 5, 2025

The Supreme Court said Friday it will decide the legality of President Trump's executive order that seeks to end birthright citizenship, which automatically grants citizenship to nearly everyone born in the U.S.

Issued at the start of his second term, the plan is the first from Mr. Trump's immigration agenda that the Supreme Court will evaluate on the legal merits. The justices have been asked to intervene in several challenges to Mr. Trump's immigration policies, but did so at early stages of the cases and through emergency requests for relief.

No lower court that has been confronted with legal challenges to the birthright citizenship order has embraced the Trump administration's interpretation of the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause. Still, the Justice Department has argued that those decisions are wrong, claiming that the Constitution does not grant citizenship to the children of "temporary visitors or illegal aliens."

Hey if at first you don't succeed, try, try again!

Mr. Trump issued his executive order on birthright citizenship on his first day back in the White House. Under the plan, children born in the U.S. to parents who are either in the country illegally or on a temporary basis are not recognized as U.S. citizens.

The president's directive sought to reverse more than a century of understanding that the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to babies born on U.S. soil, with exceptions for children born to diplomats and foreign military forces. The Supreme Court addressed the issue 127 years ago, ruling in 1898 that the Citizenship Clause ties U.S. citizenship to place of birth.

Like I said Trump and his cronies have a very hard time reading English!

In birthright citizenship case, Justice Department urges court to treat an old concept in a new way

SCOTUS Blog

By César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández

on Mar 9, 2026

President Donald Trump’s attempt to narrow access to birthright citizenship is less than one month from argument. The Justice Department is urging the justices to side with Trump’s interpretation of the 14^th Amendment’s citizenship clause by incorporating into it the legal concept of domicile, which traditionally refers to the place where a person lives and intends to continue living, even though it doesn’t appear in the constitutional provision’s text. In doing so, the Justice Department also attempts to transform domicile from a broad principle to one that is remarkably more restrictive.

[...]

Since the citizenship clause doesn’t mention domicile, the solicitor general argues that it is implied in the constitutional text’s reference to residence. According to the 14th Amendment, everyone who satisfies the location and jurisdiction requirements are “citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.” To close the gap between the word reside, which does appear in the constitutional text, and domicile, which doesn’t, the solicitor general explains “‘residence’ means ‘domicile,’” citing an 1878 decision Robertson v. Cease. Except that case isn’t about birthright citizenship at all. Instead, it concerns federal courts’ authority to decide certain civil lawsuits. Incorporating a concept from one area of law to another isn’t necessarily fatal, but it does stretch the decision’s relevance.

You see that's where Newspeak and Doublespeak come in! Where is there any mention of domicile? I don't see it neither... but Trump & Company says it is implied. I'm not the only one not buying it!

Virginia AG joins coalition defending birthright citizenship in Supreme Court case

Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones joins a multi-state coalition defending birthright citizenship against Trump's 2025 order, now challenged in the Supreme Court.

13 News Now

Kathleen Lundy

March 4, 2026

Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones has joined a multi-state coalition defending birthright citizenship in a case now before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Jones joined the coalition in late February as part of a group of attorneys general filing a legal brief arguing that former President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship is unconstitutional.

[...]

Multiple lawsuits were filed shortly after the order was signed. Federal courts in Washington state and Massachusetts issued nationwide preliminary injunctions blocking the policy from taking effect while legal challenges move forward.

The U.S. Supreme Court is now considering the legality of the order in a case known as Barbara v. Trump, which was brought by a group of children who could lose citizenship if the policy is upheld.

And even the Catholic Bishop had words on the invasion.

U.S. Bishops among supporters of lawsuit against Trump birthright citizenship executive order

U.S. Bishops among supporters of lawsuit against Trump birthright citizenship executive order

Roman Catholic Diocese of Scranton, PA

The U.S. bishops and a Catholic immigration advocacy group were among those who offered their support to a lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s executive order limiting birthright citizenship.

Oral argument in the case, Trump v. Barbara, is scheduled for April 1.

[...]

A series of amicus briefs, sometimes called friend of the court briefs, were filed in either support or opposition to the order. Amicus briefs are filed by groups or individuals who are not a party to the case but have an interest in it, asking the court to consider certain arguments.

One such brief was filed by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Catholic Legal Immigration Network Inc., also known as CLINIC.

Their brief argued they were “motivated by the teachings of the Catholic

Church,” including “the central belief that every person is imbued with an inviolable dignity, and that all human life, created in the image and likeness of God, is sacred.”

“It is through this lens that the Church stands for ‘treating people humanely, treating people with the dignity that they have,'” the brief argued, citing comments made by Pope Leo XIV at Castel Gandolfo Nov. 18, 2025. “These teachings extend to immigrants in the United States without legal status and their American children who were born in the United States.”

“Not only is the principle of birthright citizenship woven into our Nation’s history and Western tradition, but it is also consistent with Catholic teaching,” the brief continued. “Birthright citizenship aligns with the Church’s teaching that humans were created as social beings and that political authority is morally bound to affirm and protect the inherent dignity of every human person in the community. In turn, birthright citizenship reflects the Catholic principle of subsidiarity by recognizing persons as members of the community from birth, thereby enabling their participation in civic life and ensuring that state power serves the human person as a social being.”

It seems that only Trump & Company sees those words in the 14^th Amendment, the big question is will the Supreme Court see it Trump's way? 

---

Update: 3/12 @ Midnight

Well Trump & Company are trying a new tack on the 14^th Amendment!

The 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause does not codify English principles of subjectship

SCOTUS Blog

By Pete Patterson

on Mar 11, 2026

Critics and supporters of President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship often focus on the order’s barring of automatic citizenship to children born to individuals unlawfully present in the United States. In this column, I would instead like to focus on the order’s barring of such citizenship to children born to individuals lawfully but transiently present in the United States, because the order’s treatment of those children brings the dispute into sharp focus. One side argues that the 14th Amendment effectively codifies the English common law of subjectship to declare that the children of foreign visitors are birthright citizens. The other side argues that the 14th Amendment instead codifies an American rule of declaring as citizens those who have chosen to make this country their home. The latter view is the better one.

Okay I could possible by that argument on the Constitution but the Fourteenth Amendment was passed in 1866! That is over 90 years since the Revolution!

In adopting the 14th Amendment, the people of this nation sought once and for all to establish the meaning of citizenship under the Constitution on firm republican principles. Those principles were divorced from feudal British notions of the king’s sovereignty and based on American notions of consent of the governed. It follows that the children born to those visiting America are not citizens under the 14th Amendment. As Senator Lyman Trumbull explained, the citizenship provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the meaning of which the framers of the 14th Amendment sought to enshrine in the amendment’s citizenship clause, were expressly crafted to avoid making citizens of “persons temporarily residing in [the United States] whom we would have no right to make citizens.”

What it will boil down to is the discussion on the floor of Congress when they were debating the bill. From what I have read, all this bull about citizens is because of the Republicans are xenophobes.