ACLU Leader Changes Tune on Bathroom Law When Her Daughters Saw Men in the Ladies Room

[MarcATL]

She was the interim director for the state of Georgia.

I find it interesting that non-vetted blog-type wingnut sites are running the story, but not a single actual news site is.

Makes me wonder if the non-vetted blog-type wingnut sites are circlejerking something that didn't really happen.

It's a dead giveaway that that's the case.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[Jack4jill]

If my wife, daughter, or sister was in the ladies' room and a man went in there, I would follow him in and yank him out. If the police arrested me, I would refuse to cop a plea but insist they give me a trial by jury. I would put up my own defense, and in closing arguments I would point out that the prosecution had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no doubt in my mind that the man was a transgender, and I had no reasonable fear that he would harm my wife, daughter, or sister. If that argument didn't work, I would hire male private investigators to enter the women's restrooms of the courthouse while female jurors were in there, and I would hire female private investigators to enter the men's restrooms of the courthouse while male jurors were in there. If anyone complained I was tampering with the jury, I would ask them to explain how hiring private investigators to do what was legal was tampering in any way with the justice system.

View attachment 76944

Can't wait to see you behind bars.

 

[emilynghiem]

Funny that transgenders make up only .03% of the population and people rarely saw them, or didn't know they did, in the past. Suddenly, there are men in restrooms everywhere. Either they are just taking advantageous of the situation or a lot of people suddenly realized they were transgender.

She's right that we need to find a middle ground instead of exposing children to men using the restrooms.

"There’s an easy way to turn a liberal into a conservative: introduce them to the real world.

That happened to Maya Dillard Smith, former director of the Georgia chapter of the ACLU.

Smith, like so many in the ACLU, the left, and the Democrat party, pushed hard for "transgendered" bathroom rules…the kind that Obama recently ordered schools across the nation to obey.

But yesterday, she stepped down — after seeing her daughters "frightened" by biological males using the women’s restroom.

As Federalist Papers reported:

The ACLU has been increasingly focusing on transgender issues, advocating for "gender neutral" restrooms and permitting biological males to use women’s restrooms, LifeSiteNews is reporting.

"I have shared my personal experience of having taken my elementary school age daughters into a women’s restroom when shortly after three transgender young adults, over six feet [tall] with deep voices, entered," she wrote.

"My children were visibly frightened, concerned about their safety and left asking lots of questions for which I, like many parents, was ill-prepared to answer," she continued. "I found myself principally and philosophically unaligned with the organization."

"I understood it to be the ACLU’s goal to delicately balance competing rights to ensure that any infringements are narrowly tailored, that they do not create a hierarchy of rights, and that we are mindful of unintended consequences," she said.

"I believe there are solutions that can provide accommodations for transgender people and balance the need to ensure women and girls are safe from those who might have malicious intent," she said.

She has started a new website, FindingMiddleGround.com, that seems to look for a middle ground between privacy rights and transgender rights.

But you know liberals. For putting her daughters above "fundamentally transforming America," Smith is now receiving vicious hate from her fellow travelers. She is a traitor to them now.

Cheryl Courtney-Evans, writing on her blog "A ***** For Justice," railed against Dillard Smith, saying she should "STFU," calling her a "*****" and "stupid as sh*t.""

http://toprightnews.com/aclu-leader-learns-brutal-truth-after-daughters-encounter-men-in-womens-restroom/

ACLU Leader Quits Over 'Transgender Bathroom Rights' Flap

Wow! Someone at the ACLU finally got it right! whoo hoo!

I either want to hire this [person] or go work for them.

It's a woman, dummy, and she's out of a job.

I will correct that. I am at my night job and was skimming way too fast out of excitement
the ACLU actually had someone actually GET there's something wrong with the bill.

I also need to find a Libertarian or Constitutional law firm to go work with.
All the others seem sold out. Some Christian firms will do limited work.
But on the issue of ACA mandates, my friends and I could not find law firms to take this on.

There's hope some ACLU people might have a clue after all.

I may have to set up a legal group, team or center in Houston to take this on.
Pastors formed a group to defeat the bathroom measures pushed by the previous mayor.
It's not impossible but it's a new angle we didn't have to pursue before it pushed this far!

That's how new jobs and companies are created Jack4jill
Supply and Demand. Identifying a need, and filling it!
=====================================
PS I realize you are new to the USMB, Jack.

But the reason I have to work two jobs is that I am personally
financing 60,000 dollars worth of damage control that nonprofits
had to eat in costs because of govt abuse and damages caused
by corruption and abuse of tax dollars to destroy two districts
and the plans the community nonprofits had for restoring them as school programs.

My day job ended last fall, and I have been struggling (in addition to paying
for these debts caused by govt abuses and damages) to pay an additional
cost to cover the ACA requirements. So I am under severe hardship because
of mismanaged and abusive policies mostly pushed by Democratic party leaders/officials.

I am looking to replace my day job and want to work fulltime at correcting
these messes caused by Democratic officials with no sense of Constitutional limits
on laws and govt, so their policies are not manageable through govt. They create
more bureaucracy and costs, while not paying for the existing nonprofits and programs
that could serve the public and solve problems more cost-effectively through volunteer means.
The money is sucked out of working taxpayers, business owners, communities and away from nonprofits that
could be doing the work, and is fed into political campaigns and into federal govt that gives money to corporate welfare.
So we end up paying 2-3 times more money and still aren't getting the education, health care and social services paid for.

Anyone who gets the concept, that we are better off investing in building local communities
to be self-governing and self-sustaining business and school districts, that's who I want
to work with to write this up and get it organized through states and parties if necessary.

The Greens have a lot of good sustainable methods and solutions.
the Libertarians have more of the Constitutional activists willing to enact the actual
legislative and legal steps. So it's a matter of time in putting these resources together.
That's what I want to invest my time and labor into. Not more people willing to compromise
and keep paying these insane costs for nonsolutions that take money AWAY from
charities, nonprofits, businesses and civic organizations that do a better job than trying to go through federal govt for everything.

 

[Jack4jill]

Funny that transgenders make up only .03% of the population and people rarely saw them, or didn't know they did, in the past. Suddenly, there are men in restrooms everywhere. Either they are just taking advantageous of the situation or a lot of people suddenly realized they were transgender.

She's right that we need to find a middle ground instead of exposing children to men using the restrooms.

"There’s an easy way to turn a liberal into a conservative: introduce them to the real world.

That happened to Maya Dillard Smith, former director of the Georgia chapter of the ACLU.

Smith, like so many in the ACLU, the left, and the Democrat party, pushed hard for "transgendered" bathroom rules…the kind that Obama recently ordered schools across the nation to obey.

But yesterday, she stepped down — after seeing her daughters "frightened" by biological males using the women’s restroom.

As Federalist Papers reported:

The ACLU has been increasingly focusing on transgender issues, advocating for "gender neutral" restrooms and permitting biological males to use women’s restrooms, LifeSiteNews is reporting.

"I have shared my personal experience of having taken my elementary school age daughters into a women’s restroom when shortly after three transgender young adults, over six feet [tall] with deep voices, entered," she wrote.

"My children were visibly frightened, concerned about their safety and left asking lots of questions for which I, like many parents, was ill-prepared to answer," she continued. "I found myself principally and philosophically unaligned with the organization."

"I understood it to be the ACLU’s goal to delicately balance competing rights to ensure that any infringements are narrowly tailored, that they do not create a hierarchy of rights, and that we are mindful of unintended consequences," she said.

"I believe there are solutions that can provide accommodations for transgender people and balance the need to ensure women and girls are safe from those who might have malicious intent," she said.

She has started a new website, FindingMiddleGround.com, that seems to look for a middle ground between privacy rights and transgender rights.

But you know liberals. For putting her daughters above "fundamentally transforming America," Smith is now receiving vicious hate from her fellow travelers. She is a traitor to them now.

Cheryl Courtney-Evans, writing on her blog "A ***** For Justice," railed against Dillard Smith, saying she should "STFU," calling her a "*****" and "stupid as sh*t.""

http://toprightnews.com/aclu-leader-learns-brutal-truth-after-daughters-encounter-men-in-womens-restroom/

ACLU Leader Quits Over 'Transgender Bathroom Rights' Flap

Wow! Someone at the ACLU finally got it right! whoo hoo!

I either want to hire this [person] or go work for them.

It's a woman, dummy, and she's out of a job.

I will correct that. I am at my night job and was skimming way too fast out of excitement
the ACLU actually had someone actually GET there's something wrong with the bill.

I also need to find a Libertarian or Constitutional law firm to go work with.
All the others seem sold out. Some Christian firms will do limited work.
But on the issue of ACA mandates, my friends and I could not find law firms to take this on.

There's hope some ACLU people might have a clue after all.

I may have to set up a legal group, team or center in Houston to take this on.
Pastors formed a group to defeat the bathroom measures pushed by the previous mayor.
It's not impossible but it's a new angle we didn't have to pursue before it pushed this far!

That's how new jobs and companies are created Jack4jill
Supply and Demand. Identifying a need, and filling it!
=====================================
PS I realize you are new to the USMB, Jack.

But the reason I have to work two jobs is that I am personally
financing 60,000 dollars worth of damage control that nonprofits
had to eat in costs because of govt abuse and damages caused
by corruption and abuse of tax dollars to destroy two districts
and the plans the community nonprofits had for restoring them as school programs.

My day job ended last fall, and I have been struggling (in addition to paying
for these debts caused by govt abuses and damages) to pay an additional
cost to cover the ACA requirements. So I am under severe hardship because
of mismanaged and abusive policies mostly pushed by Democratic party leaders/officials.

I am looking to replace my day job and want to work fulltime at correcting
these messes caused by Democratic officials with no sense of Constitutional limits
on laws and govt, so their policies are not manageable through govt. They create
more bureaucracy and costs, while not paying for the existing nonprofits and programs
that could serve the public and solve problems more cost-effectively through volunteer means.
The money is sucked out of working taxpayers, business owners, communities and away from nonprofits that
could be doing the work, and is fed into political campaigns and into federal govt that gives money to corporate welfare.
So we end up paying 2-3 times more money and still aren't getting the education, health care and social services paid for.

Anyone who gets the concept, that we are better off investing in building local communities
to be self-governing and self-sustaining business and school districts, that's who I want
to work with to write this up and get it organized through states and parties if necessary.

The Greens have a lot of good sustainable methods and solutions.
the Libertarians have more of the Constitutional activists willing to enact the actual
legislative and legal steps. So it's a matter of time in putting these resources together.
That's what I want to invest my time and labor into. Not more people willing to compromise
and keep paying these insane costs for nonsolutions that take money AWAY from
charities, nonprofits, businesses and civic organizations that do a better job than trying to go through federal govt for everything.

Fighting the ACA is pissing into the wind. Don't bother.

 

[Blackrook]

Here is my hypothetical examination of my private investigator, during my hypothetical trial for pulling a man out of a ladies' restroom to protect my wife, daughter or sister:

Me: Please state your name for the record.

Witness: John Smith.

Me: And what do you do for a living Mr. Smith?

Witness: I am a private investigator, license number X-3333.

Me: And what is your involvement with this case?

Witness: You asked me to work for you today.

Me: What was the job?

Witness: You asked me to go into the women's restroom at 8:30 this morning, bring a newspaper, and stay in there all day reading the newspaper until the end of the court day at 5:00 p.m.

Me: Did I tell you anything else?

Witness: Yes, you told me that if anyone asked what I was doing in the women's restroom, I should say I identify as a woman, and that it was within my rights as a transgender woman to be in the women's restroom.

Me: As you sit here today, do you identify as a woman?

Witness: No, I do not.

Me: When I talked to you yesterday afternoon, did you identify as a woman?

Witness: No, I did not.

Me: As you sat in the women's restroom today, did you identify as a woman?

Witness: Yes, I did.

Me: Why did you identify as a woman while sitting in the women's restroom?

Witness: Because you told me to.

Me: So, you were within your legal rights to be in the women's restroom today?

Prosecution: Objection, calls for a legal conclusion.

Me: I'll rephrase. While you were sitting in the women's restroom today, did you BELIEVE you had a legal right to be there, reading a newspaper?

Witness: You told me yesterday that this trial would determine whether I, as a man who identified as a woman, had a right to sit in a women's restroom and read the newspaper.

Prosecutor: Objection, hearsay.

Me: Goes to state of mind.

The Court: I will allow it, but counsel, I warn you, I will not have you make a farce of these proceedings.

Me: So tell me what happened today, while you were reading the newspaper in the women's restroom?

Witness: Some of the women seemed uncomfortable, and they asked me what I was doing, and I said 'I am reading a newspaper.'

Me: And did they ask you why you, as a man, were reading a newspaper in the women's room?

Witness: Yes.

Me: And what did you say.

Witness: I said I identify as a woman.

Me: Did anything else happen?

Witness: Finally, a woman from the prosecutor's office came in and demanded I leave, and I said I was within my rights to be in the women's restroom, and she got mad and left.

Me: Then what happened?

Witness: A bailiff came in with the lady prosecutor and told me that the judge had ordered that I leave the women's restroom, so I had better leave.

Me: So what did you do?

Witness: Well, I didn't want to end up jailed for contempt of court, so I left the women's restroom.

Me: Did you try to explain you identify as a woman?

Witness: I did, but the bailiff would not listen to my explanations.

Me: Did anyone tell you you were pulling a "stunt"?

Witness: Yes, the lady from the prosecutor's office said that. She said I wasn't really a transgender so I was not allowed in the men's restroom, and that you were just trying to turn this trial into a "media circus."

Me: Did she offer anything in the way of proof that you do not identify as a woman?

Witness: No, she did not.

Me: And can you prove that while you were sitting in the women's restroom, you identified as a woman?

Witness: Well, the way you explained it to me yesterday, the burden of proof isn't on the man who claims to identify as a woman, the burden of proof is on the person asking him to leave to prove he doesn't.

Me: Which is why I am on trial today.

Witness: That is my understanding.

Me: So the judge's order today was unlawful, was it not? Given that he did the exact same thing I am accused of doing when he ordered you to leave?

Witness: It is not for me to question a court's order.

 

[emilynghiem]

Funny that transgenders make up only .03% of the population and people rarely saw them, or didn't know they did, in the past. Suddenly, there are men in restrooms everywhere. Either they are just taking advantageous of the situation or a lot of people suddenly realized they were transgender.

She's right that we need to find a middle ground instead of exposing children to men using the restrooms.

"There’s an easy way to turn a liberal into a conservative: introduce them to the real world.

That happened to Maya Dillard Smith, former director of the Georgia chapter of the ACLU.

Smith, like so many in the ACLU, the left, and the Democrat party, pushed hard for "transgendered" bathroom rules…the kind that Obama recently ordered schools across the nation to obey.

But yesterday, she stepped down — after seeing her daughters "frightened" by biological males using the women’s restroom.

As Federalist Papers reported:

The ACLU has been increasingly focusing on transgender issues, advocating for "gender neutral" restrooms and permitting biological males to use women’s restrooms, LifeSiteNews is reporting.

"I have shared my personal experience of having taken my elementary school age daughters into a women’s restroom when shortly after three transgender young adults, over six feet [tall] with deep voices, entered," she wrote.

"My children were visibly frightened, concerned about their safety and left asking lots of questions for which I, like many parents, was ill-prepared to answer," she continued. "I found myself principally and philosophically unaligned with the organization."

"I understood it to be the ACLU’s goal to delicately balance competing rights to ensure that any infringements are narrowly tailored, that they do not create a hierarchy of rights, and that we are mindful of unintended consequences," she said.

"I believe there are solutions that can provide accommodations for transgender people and balance the need to ensure women and girls are safe from those who might have malicious intent," she said.

She has started a new website, FindingMiddleGround.com, that seems to look for a middle ground between privacy rights and transgender rights.

But you know liberals. For putting her daughters above "fundamentally transforming America," Smith is now receiving vicious hate from her fellow travelers. She is a traitor to them now.

Cheryl Courtney-Evans, writing on her blog "A ***** For Justice," railed against Dillard Smith, saying she should "STFU," calling her a "*****" and "stupid as sh*t.""

http://toprightnews.com/aclu-leader-learns-brutal-truth-after-daughters-encounter-men-in-womens-restroom/

ACLU Leader Quits Over 'Transgender Bathroom Rights' Flap

Wow! Someone at the ACLU finally got it right! whoo hoo!

I either want to hire this [person] or go work for them.

It's a woman, dummy, and she's out of a job.

I will correct that. I am at my night job and was skimming way too fast out of excitement
the ACLU actually had someone actually GET there's something wrong with the bill.

I also need to find a Libertarian or Constitutional law firm to go work with.
All the others seem sold out. Some Christian firms will do limited work.
But on the issue of ACA mandates, my friends and I could not find law firms to take this on.

There's hope some ACLU people might have a clue after all.

I may have to set up a legal group, team or center in Houston to take this on.
Pastors formed a group to defeat the bathroom measures pushed by the previous mayor.
It's not impossible but it's a new angle we didn't have to pursue before it pushed this far!

That's how new jobs and companies are created Jack4jill
Supply and Demand. Identifying a need, and filling it!
=====================================
PS I realize you are new to the USMB, Jack.

But the reason I have to work two jobs is that I am personally
financing 60,000 dollars worth of damage control that nonprofits
had to eat in costs because of govt abuse and damages caused
by corruption and abuse of tax dollars to destroy two districts
and the plans the community nonprofits had for restoring them as school programs.

My day job ended last fall, and I have been struggling (in addition to paying
for these debts caused by govt abuses and damages) to pay an additional
cost to cover the ACA requirements. So I am under severe hardship because
of mismanaged and abusive policies mostly pushed by Democratic party leaders/officials.

I am looking to replace my day job and want to work fulltime at correcting
these messes caused by Democratic officials with no sense of Constitutional limits
on laws and govt, so their policies are not manageable through govt. They create
more bureaucracy and costs, while not paying for the existing nonprofits and programs
that could serve the public and solve problems more cost-effectively through volunteer means.
The money is sucked out of working taxpayers, business owners, communities and away from nonprofits that
could be doing the work, and is fed into political campaigns and into federal govt that gives money to corporate welfare.
So we end up paying 2-3 times more money and still aren't getting the education, health care and social services paid for.

Anyone who gets the concept, that we are better off investing in building local communities
to be self-governing and self-sustaining business and school districts, that's who I want
to work with to write this up and get it organized through states and parties if necessary.

The Greens have a lot of good sustainable methods and solutions.
the Libertarians have more of the Constitutional activists willing to enact the actual
legislative and legal steps. So it's a matter of time in putting these resources together.
That's what I want to invest my time and labor into. Not more people willing to compromise
and keep paying these insane costs for nonsolutions that take money AWAY from
charities, nonprofits, businesses and civic organizations that do a better job than trying to go through federal govt for everything.

Fighting the ACA is pissing into the wind. Don't bother.

Then there should be no issue with adding a box to check
where people can fund the programs of their choice.

You don't have to fight it. Just insist that the Democratic Party
pay for the BELIEFS of their choice, and let people of other
parties enjoy the same rights, freedoms and protections.

 

[Jack4jill]

Funny that transgenders make up only .03% of the population and people rarely saw them, or didn't know they did, in the past. Suddenly, there are men in restrooms everywhere. Either they are just taking advantageous of the situation or a lot of people suddenly realized they were transgender.

She's right that we need to find a middle ground instead of exposing children to men using the restrooms.

"There’s an easy way to turn a liberal into a conservative: introduce them to the real world.

That happened to Maya Dillard Smith, former director of the Georgia chapter of the ACLU.

Smith, like so many in the ACLU, the left, and the Democrat party, pushed hard for "transgendered" bathroom rules…the kind that Obama recently ordered schools across the nation to obey.

But yesterday, she stepped down — after seeing her daughters "frightened" by biological males using the women’s restroom.

As Federalist Papers reported:

The ACLU has been increasingly focusing on transgender issues, advocating for "gender neutral" restrooms and permitting biological males to use women’s restrooms, LifeSiteNews is reporting.

"I have shared my personal experience of having taken my elementary school age daughters into a women’s restroom when shortly after three transgender young adults, over six feet [tall] with deep voices, entered," she wrote.

"My children were visibly frightened, concerned about their safety and left asking lots of questions for which I, like many parents, was ill-prepared to answer," she continued. "I found myself principally and philosophically unaligned with the organization."

"I understood it to be the ACLU’s goal to delicately balance competing rights to ensure that any infringements are narrowly tailored, that they do not create a hierarchy of rights, and that we are mindful of unintended consequences," she said.

"I believe there are solutions that can provide accommodations for transgender people and balance the need to ensure women and girls are safe from those who might have malicious intent," she said.

She has started a new website, FindingMiddleGround.com, that seems to look for a middle ground between privacy rights and transgender rights.

But you know liberals. For putting her daughters above "fundamentally transforming America," Smith is now receiving vicious hate from her fellow travelers. She is a traitor to them now.

Cheryl Courtney-Evans, writing on her blog "A ***** For Justice," railed against Dillard Smith, saying she should "STFU," calling her a "*****" and "stupid as sh*t.""

http://toprightnews.com/aclu-leader-learns-brutal-truth-after-daughters-encounter-men-in-womens-restroom/

ACLU Leader Quits Over 'Transgender Bathroom Rights' Flap

Wow! Someone at the ACLU finally got it right! whoo hoo!

I either want to hire this [person] or go work for them.

It's a woman, dummy, and she's out of a job.

I will correct that. I am at my night job and was skimming way too fast out of excitement
the ACLU actually had someone actually GET there's something wrong with the bill.

I also need to find a Libertarian or Constitutional law firm to go work with.
All the others seem sold out. Some Christian firms will do limited work.
But on the issue of ACA mandates, my friends and I could not find law firms to take this on.

There's hope some ACLU people might have a clue after all.

I may have to set up a legal group, team or center in Houston to take this on.
Pastors formed a group to defeat the bathroom measures pushed by the previous mayor.
It's not impossible but it's a new angle we didn't have to pursue before it pushed this far!

That's how new jobs and companies are created Jack4jill
Supply and Demand. Identifying a need, and filling it!
=====================================
PS I realize you are new to the USMB, Jack.

But the reason I have to work two jobs is that I am personally
financing 60,000 dollars worth of damage control that nonprofits
had to eat in costs because of govt abuse and damages caused
by corruption and abuse of tax dollars to destroy two districts
and the plans the community nonprofits had for restoring them as school programs.

My day job ended last fall, and I have been struggling (in addition to paying
for these debts caused by govt abuses and damages) to pay an additional
cost to cover the ACA requirements. So I am under severe hardship because
of mismanaged and abusive policies mostly pushed by Democratic party leaders/officials.

I am looking to replace my day job and want to work fulltime at correcting
these messes caused by Democratic officials with no sense of Constitutional limits
on laws and govt, so their policies are not manageable through govt. They create
more bureaucracy and costs, while not paying for the existing nonprofits and programs
that could serve the public and solve problems more cost-effectively through volunteer means.
The money is sucked out of working taxpayers, business owners, communities and away from nonprofits that
could be doing the work, and is fed into political campaigns and into federal govt that gives money to corporate welfare.
So we end up paying 2-3 times more money and still aren't getting the education, health care and social services paid for.

Anyone who gets the concept, that we are better off investing in building local communities
to be self-governing and self-sustaining business and school districts, that's who I want
to work with to write this up and get it organized through states and parties if necessary.

The Greens have a lot of good sustainable methods and solutions.
the Libertarians have more of the Constitutional activists willing to enact the actual
legislative and legal steps. So it's a matter of time in putting these resources together.
That's what I want to invest my time and labor into. Not more people willing to compromise
and keep paying these insane costs for nonsolutions that take money AWAY from
charities, nonprofits, businesses and civic organizations that do a better job than trying to go through federal govt for everything.

Fighting the ACA is pissing into the wind. Don't bother.

Then there should be no issue with adding a box to check
where people can fund the programs of their choice.

You don't have to fight it. Just insist that the Democratic Party
pay for the BELIEFS of their choice, and let people of other
parties enjoy the same rights, freedoms and protections.

We don't get to pick where the taxes are spent. I'd be perfectly happy to close the pentagon but I can't, it's not an option.

 

[emilynghiem]

Here is my hypothetical examination of my private investigator, during my hypothetical trial for pulling a man out of a ladies' restroom to protect my wife, daughter or sister:

Me: Please state your name for the record.

Witness: You asked me to work for you today.

Me: What was the job?

Witness: You asked me to go into the women's restroom at 8:30 in the morning, bring a newspaper, and stay in there all day reading the newspaper until the end of the court day at 5:00 p.m.

Me: Did I tell you anything else?

Witness: Yes, you told me that if anyone asked what I was doing in the women's restroom, I should say I identify as a woman, and that it was within my rights as a transgender woman to be in the women's restroom.

Me: As you sit here today, do you identify as a woman?

Witness: No, I do not.

Me: When I talked to you yesterday afternoon, did you identify as a woman?

Witness: No, I did not.

Me: As you sat in the women's restroom today, did you identify as a woman?

Witness: Yes, I did.

Me: Why did you identify as a woman while sitting in the women's restroom?

Witness: Because you told me to.

Me: So, you were within your legal rights to be in the women's restroom today?

Prosecution: Objection, calls for a legal conclusion.

Me: I'll rephrase. While you were sitting in the women's restroom today, did you BELIEVE you had a legal right to be there, reading a newspaper?

Witness: You told me yesterday that this trial would determine whether I, as a man who identified as a woman, had a right to sit in a women's restroom and read the newspaper.

Prosecutor: Objection, hearsay.

Me: Goes to state of mind.

The Court: I will allow it, but counsel, I warn you, I will not have you make a farce of these proceedings.

Me: So tell me what happened today, while you were reading the newspaper in the women's restroom?

Witness: Some of the women seemed uncomfortable, and they asked me what I was doing, and I said 'I am reading a newspaper.'

Me: And did they ask you why you, as a man, were reading a newspaper in the women's room?

Witness: Yes.

Me: And what did you say.

Witness: I said I identify as a woman.

Me: Did anything else happen?

Witness: Finally, a woman from the prosecutor's office came in and demanded I leave, and I said I was within my rights to be in the women's restroom, and she got mad and left.

Me: Then what happened?

Witness: A bailiff came in and told me that the judge had ordered that I leave the women's restroom, so I had better leave.

Me: So what did you do?

Witness: Well, I didn't want to end up jailed for contempt of court, so I left the women's restroom.

Me: Did you try to explain you identify as a woman?

Witness: I did, but the bailiff would not listen to my explanations.

Me: Did anyone tell you you were pulling a "stunt"?

Witness: Yes, the lady from the prosecutor's office said that. She said I wasn't really a transgender so I was not allowed in the men's restroom, and that you were just trying to turn this trial into a "media circus."

Me: Did she offer anything in the way of proof that you do not identify as a woman?

Witness: No, she did not.

Me: And can you prove that while you were sitting in the women's restroom, you identified as a woman?

Witness: Well, the way you explained it to me yesterday, the burden of proof isn't on the man who claims to identify as a woman, the burden of proof is on the person asking him to leave to prove he doesn't.

Me: Which is why I am on trial today.

Witness: That is my understanding.

Me: So the judge's order today was unlawful, was it not? Given that he did the exact same thing I am accused of doing when he ordered you to leave?

Witness: It is not for me to question a court's order.

Dear Blackrook to avoid an endless string of lawsuits and legislative actions in response to this policy,
I propose to save taxpayers money by

a. allowing taxpayers to separate funding of school, health care programs, and benefits
so the LGBT can impose the FAITH BASED BELIEFS of their choice
and equally the Christians can exercise their FAITH BASED BELIEFS.

This will reduce if not prevent the ongoing lawsuits over creation/evolution,
prayer and crosses, and references to Christianity treated differently from
references to Homosexuality (which amounts to discrimination by creed)
by allowing the choice to segregate beliefs (ie separation of church and state)
that will solve a lot of these clashes in beliefs

b. offering a mediation or arbitration clause for businesses to have
customers sign if they want to conduct business together. So any
conflict of "beliefs" is either resolved amicably by consent of the parties,
or they agree to refrain from business relations in order to avoid
legal actions or expenses. If they won't sign it, they aren't welcome as customers.
Either agree on consensus as a standard on policies, to avoid lawsuits,
or agree to avoid interactions due to "conflicting beliefs" where neither side is at fault.

c. adding a clause to the Equality Act that protects people from discrimination
due to "conflicting beliefs or creeds" where faith based differences cannot be resolved
or forced by govt to change without violating equal rights freedoms and protections of law.

So if the LGBT have the right to change policies to accommodate them as a small minority,
all other people of conflicting beliefs have the right to be accommodated, regardless of number,
and can't be forced by govt to compromise beliefs for the convenience or beliefs of others.

 

[emilynghiem]

ACLU Leader Quits Over 'Transgender Bathroom Rights' Flap

Wow! Someone at the ACLU finally got it right! whoo hoo!

I either want to hire this [person] or go work for them.

It's a woman, dummy, and she's out of a job.

I will correct that. I am at my night job and was skimming way too fast out of excitement
the ACLU actually had someone actually GET there's something wrong with the bill.

I also need to find a Libertarian or Constitutional law firm to go work with.
All the others seem sold out. Some Christian firms will do limited work.
But on the issue of ACA mandates, my friends and I could not find law firms to take this on.

There's hope some ACLU people might have a clue after all.

I may have to set up a legal group, team or center in Houston to take this on.
Pastors formed a group to defeat the bathroom measures pushed by the previous mayor.
It's not impossible but it's a new angle we didn't have to pursue before it pushed this far!

That's how new jobs and companies are created Jack4jill
Supply and Demand. Identifying a need, and filling it!
=====================================
PS I realize you are new to the USMB, Jack.

But the reason I have to work two jobs is that I am personally
financing 60,000 dollars worth of damage control that nonprofits
had to eat in costs because of govt abuse and damages caused
by corruption and abuse of tax dollars to destroy two districts
and the plans the community nonprofits had for restoring them as school programs.

My day job ended last fall, and I have been struggling (in addition to paying
for these debts caused by govt abuses and damages) to pay an additional
cost to cover the ACA requirements. So I am under severe hardship because
of mismanaged and abusive policies mostly pushed by Democratic party leaders/officials.

I am looking to replace my day job and want to work fulltime at correcting
these messes caused by Democratic officials with no sense of Constitutional limits
on laws and govt, so their policies are not manageable through govt. They create
more bureaucracy and costs, while not paying for the existing nonprofits and programs
that could serve the public and solve problems more cost-effectively through volunteer means.
The money is sucked out of working taxpayers, business owners, communities and away from nonprofits that
could be doing the work, and is fed into political campaigns and into federal govt that gives money to corporate welfare.
So we end up paying 2-3 times more money and still aren't getting the education, health care and social services paid for.

Anyone who gets the concept, that we are better off investing in building local communities
to be self-governing and self-sustaining business and school districts, that's who I want
to work with to write this up and get it organized through states and parties if necessary.

The Greens have a lot of good sustainable methods and solutions.
the Libertarians have more of the Constitutional activists willing to enact the actual
legislative and legal steps. So it's a matter of time in putting these resources together.
That's what I want to invest my time and labor into. Not more people willing to compromise
and keep paying these insane costs for nonsolutions that take money AWAY from
charities, nonprofits, businesses and civic organizations that do a better job than trying to go through federal govt for everything.

Fighting the ACA is pissing into the wind. Don't bother.

Then there should be no issue with adding a box to check
where people can fund the programs of their choice.

You don't have to fight it. Just insist that the Democratic Party
pay for the BELIEFS of their choice, and let people of other
parties enjoy the same rights, freedoms and protections.

We don't get to pick where the taxes are spent. I'd be perfectly happy to close the pentagon but I can't, it's not an option.

Jack4jill
it WOULD be an option if we all follow the same precedent set by the LGBT
If we don't believe in that, we believe in a different way,
then we deserve "equal accommodations"
People should change the laws for us.

Now everyone can make that argument, in order to be treated equally as the LGBT.

What I recommend

1. we give people the OPTION to fund alternatives
that still provide security. So if you don't agree with the Pentagon,
would you fund military bases built along the border for security.
Would you fund the Astrodome to organize, train and dispatch troops,
construction workers and govt admin to develop production factories, and hospital
or prison campus complexes along the border in conjunction with US, Mexico,
Cities and States, and residents who would claim these communities for legal citizenship.

If you don't agree with funding the death penalty or Planned Parenthood,
then other options can be offered.

To organize all these, I suggest going through State and Party,
so it is up to that level of democratic process to manage the different choices locally
and represent the population, workers and taxpayers in that state per region.

2. we claim restitution and reimbursement for specific WRONGS
or abuses committed by govt and/or corporate/criminal interests abusing govt,
and use THAT as leverage and justification for changing what we fund
and/or where the funding will come from based on taxes/debts already charged to taxpayers.
We can demand CREDIT for the amount of tax dollars misspent unconstitutionally
and invest these to cover the costs of jobs restoring or rebuilding the areas/programs
we would have paid for using that money had it not been misdirected to private interests or profits.

if we are paying lawyers/legal teams commission to collect on behalf of taxpayers,
then we can hire help to redirect our taxes to more effective solutions repairing the damage done.

 

[Jack4jill]

It's a woman, dummy, and she's out of a job.

I will correct that. I am at my night job and was skimming way too fast out of excitement
the ACLU actually had someone actually GET there's something wrong with the bill.

I also need to find a Libertarian or Constitutional law firm to go work with.
All the others seem sold out. Some Christian firms will do limited work.
But on the issue of ACA mandates, my friends and I could not find law firms to take this on.

There's hope some ACLU people might have a clue after all.

I may have to set up a legal group, team or center in Houston to take this on.
Pastors formed a group to defeat the bathroom measures pushed by the previous mayor.
It's not impossible but it's a new angle we didn't have to pursue before it pushed this far!

That's how new jobs and companies are created Jack4jill
Supply and Demand. Identifying a need, and filling it!
=====================================
PS I realize you are new to the USMB, Jack.

But the reason I have to work two jobs is that I am personally
financing 60,000 dollars worth of damage control that nonprofits
had to eat in costs because of govt abuse and damages caused
by corruption and abuse of tax dollars to destroy two districts
and the plans the community nonprofits had for restoring them as school programs.

My day job ended last fall, and I have been struggling (in addition to paying
for these debts caused by govt abuses and damages) to pay an additional
cost to cover the ACA requirements. So I am under severe hardship because
of mismanaged and abusive policies mostly pushed by Democratic party leaders/officials.

I am looking to replace my day job and want to work fulltime at correcting
these messes caused by Democratic officials with no sense of Constitutional limits
on laws and govt, so their policies are not manageable through govt. They create
more bureaucracy and costs, while not paying for the existing nonprofits and programs
that could serve the public and solve problems more cost-effectively through volunteer means.
The money is sucked out of working taxpayers, business owners, communities and away from nonprofits that
could be doing the work, and is fed into political campaigns and into federal govt that gives money to corporate welfare.
So we end up paying 2-3 times more money and still aren't getting the education, health care and social services paid for.

Anyone who gets the concept, that we are better off investing in building local communities
to be self-governing and self-sustaining business and school districts, that's who I want
to work with to write this up and get it organized through states and parties if necessary.

The Greens have a lot of good sustainable methods and solutions.
the Libertarians have more of the Constitutional activists willing to enact the actual
legislative and legal steps. So it's a matter of time in putting these resources together.
That's what I want to invest my time and labor into. Not more people willing to compromise
and keep paying these insane costs for nonsolutions that take money AWAY from
charities, nonprofits, businesses and civic organizations that do a better job than trying to go through federal govt for everything.

Fighting the ACA is pissing into the wind. Don't bother.

Then there should be no issue with adding a box to check
where people can fund the programs of their choice.

You don't have to fight it. Just insist that the Democratic Party
pay for the BELIEFS of their choice, and let people of other
parties enjoy the same rights, freedoms and protections.

We don't get to pick where the taxes are spent. I'd be perfectly happy to close the pentagon but I can't, it's not an option.

Jack4jill
it WOULD be an option if we all follow the same precedent set by the LGBT
If we don't believe in that, we believe in a different way,
then we deserve "equal accommodations"
People should change the laws for us.

Now everyone can make that argument, in order to be treated equally as the LGBT.

What I recommend

1. we give people the OPTION to fund alternatives
that still provide security. So if you don't agree with the Pentagon,
would you fund military bases built along the border for security.
Would you fund the Astrodome to organize, train and dispatch troops,
construction workers and govt admin to develop production factories, and hospital
or prison campus complexes along the border in conjunction with US, Mexico,
Cities and States, and residents who would claim these communities for legal citizenship.

If you don't agree with funding the death penalty or Planned Parenthood,
then other options can be offered.

To organize all these, I suggest going through State and Party,
so it is up to that level of democratic process to manage the different choices locally
and represent the population, workers and taxpayers in that state per region.

2. we claim restitution and reimbursement for specific WRONGS
or abuses committed by govt and/or corporate/criminal interests abusing govt,
and use THAT as leverage and justification for changing what we fund
and/or where the funding will come from based on taxes/debts already charged to taxpayers.
We can demand CREDIT for the amount of tax dollars misspent unconstitutionally
and invest these to cover the costs of jobs restoring or rebuilding the areas/programs
we would have paid for using that money had it not been misdirected to private interests or profits.

if we are paying lawyers/legal teams commission to collect on behalf of taxpayers,
then we can hire help to redirect our taxes to more effective solutions repairing the damage done.

I can't help you. I live in the real world.

 

[emilynghiem]

I will correct that. I am at my night job and was skimming way too fast out of excitement
the ACLU actually had someone actually GET there's something wrong with the bill.

I also need to find a Libertarian or Constitutional law firm to go work with.
All the others seem sold out. Some Christian firms will do limited work.
But on the issue of ACA mandates, my friends and I could not find law firms to take this on.

There's hope some ACLU people might have a clue after all.

I may have to set up a legal group, team or center in Houston to take this on.
Pastors formed a group to defeat the bathroom measures pushed by the previous mayor.
It's not impossible but it's a new angle we didn't have to pursue before it pushed this far!

That's how new jobs and companies are created Jack4jill
Supply and Demand. Identifying a need, and filling it!
=====================================
PS I realize you are new to the USMB, Jack.

But the reason I have to work two jobs is that I am personally
financing 60,000 dollars worth of damage control that nonprofits
had to eat in costs because of govt abuse and damages caused
by corruption and abuse of tax dollars to destroy two districts
and the plans the community nonprofits had for restoring them as school programs.

My day job ended last fall, and I have been struggling (in addition to paying
for these debts caused by govt abuses and damages) to pay an additional
cost to cover the ACA requirements. So I am under severe hardship because
of mismanaged and abusive policies mostly pushed by Democratic party leaders/officials.

I am looking to replace my day job and want to work fulltime at correcting
these messes caused by Democratic officials with no sense of Constitutional limits
on laws and govt, so their policies are not manageable through govt. They create
more bureaucracy and costs, while not paying for the existing nonprofits and programs
that could serve the public and solve problems more cost-effectively through volunteer means.
The money is sucked out of working taxpayers, business owners, communities and away from nonprofits that
could be doing the work, and is fed into political campaigns and into federal govt that gives money to corporate welfare.
So we end up paying 2-3 times more money and still aren't getting the education, health care and social services paid for.

Anyone who gets the concept, that we are better off investing in building local communities
to be self-governing and self-sustaining business and school districts, that's who I want
to work with to write this up and get it organized through states and parties if necessary.

The Greens have a lot of good sustainable methods and solutions.
the Libertarians have more of the Constitutional activists willing to enact the actual
legislative and legal steps. So it's a matter of time in putting these resources together.
That's what I want to invest my time and labor into. Not more people willing to compromise
and keep paying these insane costs for nonsolutions that take money AWAY from
charities, nonprofits, businesses and civic organizations that do a better job than trying to go through federal govt for everything.

Fighting the ACA is pissing into the wind. Don't bother.

Then there should be no issue with adding a box to check
where people can fund the programs of their choice.

You don't have to fight it. Just insist that the Democratic Party
pay for the BELIEFS of their choice, and let people of other
parties enjoy the same rights, freedoms and protections.

We don't get to pick where the taxes are spent. I'd be perfectly happy to close the pentagon but I can't, it's not an option.

Jack4jill
it WOULD be an option if we all follow the same precedent set by the LGBT
If we don't believe in that, we believe in a different way,
then we deserve "equal accommodations"
People should change the laws for us.

Now everyone can make that argument, in order to be treated equally as the LGBT.

What I recommend

1. we give people the OPTION to fund alternatives
that still provide security. So if you don't agree with the Pentagon,
would you fund military bases built along the border for security.
Would you fund the Astrodome to organize, train and dispatch troops,
construction workers and govt admin to develop production factories, and hospital
or prison campus complexes along the border in conjunction with US, Mexico,
Cities and States, and residents who would claim these communities for legal citizenship.

If you don't agree with funding the death penalty or Planned Parenthood,
then other options can be offered.

To organize all these, I suggest going through State and Party,
so it is up to that level of democratic process to manage the different choices locally
and represent the population, workers and taxpayers in that state per region.

2. we claim restitution and reimbursement for specific WRONGS
or abuses committed by govt and/or corporate/criminal interests abusing govt,
and use THAT as leverage and justification for changing what we fund
and/or where the funding will come from based on taxes/debts already charged to taxpayers.
We can demand CREDIT for the amount of tax dollars misspent unconstitutionally
and invest these to cover the costs of jobs restoring or rebuilding the areas/programs
we would have paid for using that money had it not been misdirected to private interests or profits.

if we are paying lawyers/legal teams commission to collect on behalf of taxpayers,
then we can hire help to redirect our taxes to more effective solutions repairing the damage done.

I can't help you. I live in the real world.

Dear Jack4jill
RE: "REALITY"
In the REAL world: NOBODY I know wants to keep paying for govt waste and abuse.
My friends on the left pushing universal care don't agree with the ACA mandates but are 'waiting for it to be replaced or reformed'
My friends on the right who contest it as unconstitutional "are waiting to elect officials to repeal or replace it"
That's been going on since when?
So REALITY is that people DO NOT AGREE to give up our rights
and wait on the mercy of people we can't control to change something we had no say in.
Really?

If that's reality, that whole process needs to be changed.
That's unacceptable to abridge and violate people's rights
and then make us jump through a bunch of hoops
"to restore the rights we already had if this bill hadn't been imposed on us against our will"
That's backwards, unnatural by going against the will of the people, and totally unsustainable. It costs more to fight it, and would cost less to resolve conflicts in advance BEFORE and INSTEAD of passing a bill with disputed flaws in it.

So given the fact that nobody really agrees to this bill,
it should be easy to push for a simple correction by letting people redirect the funding for health care to the parties they are donating money to anyway to try to "lobby" for the health care proposals they really want. So why not take those party donations and use them directly to SET UP the health care plan.

And now with this fallout over the orientation and gender bill,
same thing, as with the clashing beliefs over the marriage policies.

If your beliefs don't agree or can't be reconciled, then
SEPARATE THEM FROM GOVT THAT IS REQUIRED TO REPRESENT ALL PEOPLE

Since we CLEARLY don't agree on beliefs, it makes More sense to separate
by party, which are organized around beliefs shared in common by members.

That's reality Jack
People want to be governed by their CONSENT
Nobody wants "taxation without representation"

So if govt is abused to violate people's natural rights
OF COURSE THEY ARE GOING TO DISSENT.

So then we have to fix the problem, until consent is restored
and civil contracts carry authority of law based on consent of the governed people/taxpayers affected.

 

[Jack4jill]

Fighting the ACA is pissing into the wind. Don't bother.

Then there should be no issue with adding a box to check
where people can fund the programs of their choice.

You don't have to fight it. Just insist that the Democratic Party
pay for the BELIEFS of their choice, and let people of other
parties enjoy the same rights, freedoms and protections.

We don't get to pick where the taxes are spent. I'd be perfectly happy to close the pentagon but I can't, it's not an option.

Jack4jill
it WOULD be an option if we all follow the same precedent set by the LGBT
If we don't believe in that, we believe in a different way,
then we deserve "equal accommodations"
People should change the laws for us.

Now everyone can make that argument, in order to be treated equally as the LGBT.

What I recommend

1. we give people the OPTION to fund alternatives
that still provide security. So if you don't agree with the Pentagon,
would you fund military bases built along the border for security.
Would you fund the Astrodome to organize, train and dispatch troops,
construction workers and govt admin to develop production factories, and hospital
or prison campus complexes along the border in conjunction with US, Mexico,
Cities and States, and residents who would claim these communities for legal citizenship.

If you don't agree with funding the death penalty or Planned Parenthood,
then other options can be offered.

To organize all these, I suggest going through State and Party,
so it is up to that level of democratic process to manage the different choices locally
and represent the population, workers and taxpayers in that state per region.

2. we claim restitution and reimbursement for specific WRONGS
or abuses committed by govt and/or corporate/criminal interests abusing govt,
and use THAT as leverage and justification for changing what we fund
and/or where the funding will come from based on taxes/debts already charged to taxpayers.
We can demand CREDIT for the amount of tax dollars misspent unconstitutionally
and invest these to cover the costs of jobs restoring or rebuilding the areas/programs
we would have paid for using that money had it not been misdirected to private interests or profits.

if we are paying lawyers/legal teams commission to collect on behalf of taxpayers,
then we can hire help to redirect our taxes to more effective solutions repairing the damage done.

I can't help you. I live in the real world.

Dear Jack4jill
RE: "REALITY"
In the REAL world: NOBODY I know wants to keep paying for govt waste and abuse.
My friends on the left pushing universal care don't agree with the ACA mandates but are 'waiting for it to be replaced or reformed'
My friends on the right who contest it as unconstitutional "are waiting to elect officials to repeal or replace it"
That's been going on since when?
So REALITY is that people DO NOT AGREE to give up our rights
and wait on the mercy of people we can't control to change something we had no say in.
Really?

If that's reality, that whole process needs to be changed.
That's unacceptable to abridge and violate people's rights
and then make us jump through a bunch of hoops
"to restore the rights we already had if this bill hadn't been imposed on us against our will"
That's backwards, unnatural by going against the will of the people, and totally unsustainable. It costs more to fight it, and would cost less to resolve conflicts in advance BEFORE and INSTEAD of passing a bill with disputed flaws in it.

So given the fact that nobody really agrees to this bill,
it should be easy to push for a simple correction by letting people redirect the funding for health care to the parties they are donating money to anyway to try to "lobby" for the health care proposals they really want. So why not take those party donations and use them directly to SET UP the health care plan.

And now with this fallout over the orientation and gender bill,
same thing, as with the clashing beliefs over the marriage policies.

If your beliefs don't agree or can't be reconciled, then
SEPARATE THEM FROM GOVT THAT IS REQUIRED TO REPRESENT ALL PEOPLE

Since we CLEARLY don't agree on beliefs, it makes More sense to separate
by party, which are organized around beliefs shared in common by members.

That's reality Jack
People want to be governed by their CONSENT
Nobody wants "taxation without representation"

So if govt is abused to violate people's natural rights
OF COURSE THEY ARE GOING TO DISSENT.

So then we have to fix the problem, until consent is restored
and civil contracts carry authority of law based on consent of the governed people/taxpayers affected.

We are not a democracy. Stop thinking like we are.

 

[emilynghiem]

Then there should be no issue with adding a box to check
where people can fund the programs of their choice.

You don't have to fight it. Just insist that the Democratic Party
pay for the BELIEFS of their choice, and let people of other
parties enjoy the same rights, freedoms and protections.

We don't get to pick where the taxes are spent. I'd be perfectly happy to close the pentagon but I can't, it's not an option.

Jack4jill
it WOULD be an option if we all follow the same precedent set by the LGBT
If we don't believe in that, we believe in a different way,
then we deserve "equal accommodations"
People should change the laws for us.

Now everyone can make that argument, in order to be treated equally as the LGBT.

What I recommend

1. we give people the OPTION to fund alternatives
that still provide security. So if you don't agree with the Pentagon,
would you fund military bases built along the border for security.
Would you fund the Astrodome to organize, train and dispatch troops,
construction workers and govt admin to develop production factories, and hospital
or prison campus complexes along the border in conjunction with US, Mexico,
Cities and States, and residents who would claim these communities for legal citizenship.

If you don't agree with funding the death penalty or Planned Parenthood,
then other options can be offered.

To organize all these, I suggest going through State and Party,
so it is up to that level of democratic process to manage the different choices locally
and represent the population, workers and taxpayers in that state per region.

2. we claim restitution and reimbursement for specific WRONGS
or abuses committed by govt and/or corporate/criminal interests abusing govt,
and use THAT as leverage and justification for changing what we fund
and/or where the funding will come from based on taxes/debts already charged to taxpayers.
We can demand CREDIT for the amount of tax dollars misspent unconstitutionally
and invest these to cover the costs of jobs restoring or rebuilding the areas/programs
we would have paid for using that money had it not been misdirected to private interests or profits.

if we are paying lawyers/legal teams commission to collect on behalf of taxpayers,
then we can hire help to redirect our taxes to more effective solutions repairing the damage done.

I can't help you. I live in the real world.

Dear Jack4jill
RE: "REALITY"
In the REAL world: NOBODY I know wants to keep paying for govt waste and abuse.
My friends on the left pushing universal care don't agree with the ACA mandates but are 'waiting for it to be replaced or reformed'
My friends on the right who contest it as unconstitutional "are waiting to elect officials to repeal or replace it"
That's been going on since when?
So REALITY is that people DO NOT AGREE to give up our rights
and wait on the mercy of people we can't control to change something we had no say in.
Really?

If that's reality, that whole process needs to be changed.
That's unacceptable to abridge and violate people's rights
and then make us jump through a bunch of hoops
"to restore the rights we already had if this bill hadn't been imposed on us against our will"
That's backwards, unnatural by going against the will of the people, and totally unsustainable. It costs more to fight it, and would cost less to resolve conflicts in advance BEFORE and INSTEAD of passing a bill with disputed flaws in it.

So given the fact that nobody really agrees to this bill,
it should be easy to push for a simple correction by letting people redirect the funding for health care to the parties they are donating money to anyway to try to "lobby" for the health care proposals they really want. So why not take those party donations and use them directly to SET UP the health care plan.

And now with this fallout over the orientation and gender bill,
same thing, as with the clashing beliefs over the marriage policies.

If your beliefs don't agree or can't be reconciled, then
SEPARATE THEM FROM GOVT THAT IS REQUIRED TO REPRESENT ALL PEOPLE

Since we CLEARLY don't agree on beliefs, it makes More sense to separate
by party, which are organized around beliefs shared in common by members.

That's reality Jack
People want to be governed by their CONSENT
Nobody wants "taxation without representation"

So if govt is abused to violate people's natural rights
OF COURSE THEY ARE GOING TO DISSENT.

So then we have to fix the problem, until consent is restored
and civil contracts carry authority of law based on consent of the governed people/taxpayers affected.

We are not a democracy. Stop thinking like we are.

We have republic structures. But people CHOOSE who to affiliate with
depending on who represents and includes our interests, and what
we need to express our consent or dissent and resolve our grievances.

People are democratic by nature, in that we want to have a say in policies,
contracts and relations that affect us. That is our human nature.

Collectively, we DO have to balance the individual will with what works for society and
the groups we organize under, whether nations or religions, organizations, business or nonprofits, schools etc.

That's what the Bill of Rights was set up to do:
to make sure Collective authority/influence of govt
was not abused to override the individual rights of citizens.

So what I'm asking Jack is to apply this same "checks and balances"
to other relations between "individual and collective authority"
Not just federal govt under the Constitution (where equal rights
was later extended to States by the 14th Amendment
and to Public Institutions by the Civil Rights Act),
but also between individuals and corporations,
individuals and political parties, religious organizations,
nonprofits or any other collective entity (even the City level
of govt that acts as a private corporation).

Just because we follow the representative structure
DOES NOT MEAN WE LOSE OUR RIGHT TO CONSENT
If policies don't represent us, or if they violate our beliefs rights interests or consent,
we have the "right to petition to redress grievances"
we have the right NOT to be "deprived of liberty without due process of
law to PROVE that we committed a crime or contributed to an abuse for which we
deserve to give up some freedom to correct or prevent that problem"
(where govt must use the LEAST restrictive means
and also seek the most economical ways, according to the Code of Ethics)

We can have BOTH Jack4jill
we can exercise democratic processes of representation
WITHIN our self-chosen affiliations and groups,
while we follow a representative/republic structure.

These two are not in conflict, but ideally the
policies we support should respect both
democratic principles and unity as a republic under collective laws.

Neither should undermine the other.
see Code of Ethics for Govt Service:
ethics-commission.net

 

[Jack4jill]

We don't get to pick where the taxes are spent. I'd be perfectly happy to close the pentagon but I can't, it's not an option.

Jack4jill
it WOULD be an option if we all follow the same precedent set by the LGBT
If we don't believe in that, we believe in a different way,
then we deserve "equal accommodations"
People should change the laws for us.

Now everyone can make that argument, in order to be treated equally as the LGBT.

What I recommend

1. we give people the OPTION to fund alternatives
that still provide security. So if you don't agree with the Pentagon,
would you fund military bases built along the border for security.
Would you fund the Astrodome to organize, train and dispatch troops,
construction workers and govt admin to develop production factories, and hospital
or prison campus complexes along the border in conjunction with US, Mexico,
Cities and States, and residents who would claim these communities for legal citizenship.

If you don't agree with funding the death penalty or Planned Parenthood,
then other options can be offered.

To organize all these, I suggest going through State and Party,
so it is up to that level of democratic process to manage the different choices locally
and represent the population, workers and taxpayers in that state per region.

2. we claim restitution and reimbursement for specific WRONGS
or abuses committed by govt and/or corporate/criminal interests abusing govt,
and use THAT as leverage and justification for changing what we fund
and/or where the funding will come from based on taxes/debts already charged to taxpayers.
We can demand CREDIT for the amount of tax dollars misspent unconstitutionally
and invest these to cover the costs of jobs restoring or rebuilding the areas/programs
we would have paid for using that money had it not been misdirected to private interests or profits.

if we are paying lawyers/legal teams commission to collect on behalf of taxpayers,
then we can hire help to redirect our taxes to more effective solutions repairing the damage done.

I can't help you. I live in the real world.

Dear Jack4jill
RE: "REALITY"
In the REAL world: NOBODY I know wants to keep paying for govt waste and abuse.
My friends on the left pushing universal care don't agree with the ACA mandates but are 'waiting for it to be replaced or reformed'
My friends on the right who contest it as unconstitutional "are waiting to elect officials to repeal or replace it"
That's been going on since when?
So REALITY is that people DO NOT AGREE to give up our rights
and wait on the mercy of people we can't control to change something we had no say in.
Really?

If that's reality, that whole process needs to be changed.
That's unacceptable to abridge and violate people's rights
and then make us jump through a bunch of hoops
"to restore the rights we already had if this bill hadn't been imposed on us against our will"
That's backwards, unnatural by going against the will of the people, and totally unsustainable. It costs more to fight it, and would cost less to resolve conflicts in advance BEFORE and INSTEAD of passing a bill with disputed flaws in it.

So given the fact that nobody really agrees to this bill,
it should be easy to push for a simple correction by letting people redirect the funding for health care to the parties they are donating money to anyway to try to "lobby" for the health care proposals they really want. So why not take those party donations and use them directly to SET UP the health care plan.

And now with this fallout over the orientation and gender bill,
same thing, as with the clashing beliefs over the marriage policies.

If your beliefs don't agree or can't be reconciled, then
SEPARATE THEM FROM GOVT THAT IS REQUIRED TO REPRESENT ALL PEOPLE

Since we CLEARLY don't agree on beliefs, it makes More sense to separate
by party, which are organized around beliefs shared in common by members.

That's reality Jack
People want to be governed by their CONSENT
Nobody wants "taxation without representation"

So if govt is abused to violate people's natural rights
OF COURSE THEY ARE GOING TO DISSENT.

So then we have to fix the problem, until consent is restored
and civil contracts carry authority of law based on consent of the governed people/taxpayers affected.

We are not a democracy. Stop thinking like we are.

We have republic structures. But people CHOOSE who to affiliate with
depending on who represents and includes our interests, and what
we need to express our consent or dissent and resolve our grievances.

People are democratic by nature, in that we want to have a say in policies,
contracts and relations that affect us. That is our human nature.

Collectively, we DO have to balance the individual will with what works for society and
the groups we organize under, whether nations or religions, organizations, business or nonprofits, schools etc.

That's what the Bill of Rights was set up to do:
to make sure Collective authority/influence of govt
was not abused to override the individual rights of citizens.

So what I'm asking Jack is to apply this same "checks and balances"
to other relations between "individual and collective authority"
Not just federal govt under the Constitution (where equal rights
was later extended to States by the 14th Amendment
and to Public Institutions by the Civil Rights Act),
but also between individuals and corporations,
individuals and political parties, religious organizations,
nonprofits or any other collective entity (even the City level
of govt that acts as a private corporation).

Just because we follow the representative structure
DOES NOT MEAN WE LOSE OUR RIGHT TO CONSENT
If policies don't represent us, or if they violate our beliefs rights interests or consent,
we have the "right to petition to redress grievances"
we have the right NOT to be "deprived of liberty without due process of
law to PROVE that we committed a crime or contributed to an abuse for which we
deserve to give up some freedom to correct or prevent that problem"
(where govt must use the LEAST restrictive means
and also seek the most economical ways, according to the Code of Ethics)

We can have BOTH Jack4jill
we can exercise democratic processes of representation
WITHIN our self-chosen affiliations and groups,
while we follow a representative/republic structure.

These two are not in conflict, but ideally the
policies we support should respect both
democratic principles and unity as a republic under collective laws.

Neither should undermine the other.
see Code of Ethics for Govt Service:
ethics-commission.net

As I said, I can't help you, I live in the real world.

 

[emilynghiem]

Jack4jill
it WOULD be an option if we all follow the same precedent set by the LGBT
If we don't believe in that, we believe in a different way,
then we deserve "equal accommodations"
People should change the laws for us.

Now everyone can make that argument, in order to be treated equally as the LGBT.

What I recommend

1. we give people the OPTION to fund alternatives
that still provide security. So if you don't agree with the Pentagon,
would you fund military bases built along the border for security.
Would you fund the Astrodome to organize, train and dispatch troops,
construction workers and govt admin to develop production factories, and hospital
or prison campus complexes along the border in conjunction with US, Mexico,
Cities and States, and residents who would claim these communities for legal citizenship.

If you don't agree with funding the death penalty or Planned Parenthood,
then other options can be offered.

To organize all these, I suggest going through State and Party,
so it is up to that level of democratic process to manage the different choices locally
and represent the population, workers and taxpayers in that state per region.

2. we claim restitution and reimbursement for specific WRONGS
or abuses committed by govt and/or corporate/criminal interests abusing govt,
and use THAT as leverage and justification for changing what we fund
and/or where the funding will come from based on taxes/debts already charged to taxpayers.
We can demand CREDIT for the amount of tax dollars misspent unconstitutionally
and invest these to cover the costs of jobs restoring or rebuilding the areas/programs
we would have paid for using that money had it not been misdirected to private interests or profits.

if we are paying lawyers/legal teams commission to collect on behalf of taxpayers,
then we can hire help to redirect our taxes to more effective solutions repairing the damage done.

I can't help you. I live in the real world.

Dear Jack4jill
RE: "REALITY"
In the REAL world: NOBODY I know wants to keep paying for govt waste and abuse.
My friends on the left pushing universal care don't agree with the ACA mandates but are 'waiting for it to be replaced or reformed'
My friends on the right who contest it as unconstitutional "are waiting to elect officials to repeal or replace it"
That's been going on since when?
So REALITY is that people DO NOT AGREE to give up our rights
and wait on the mercy of people we can't control to change something we had no say in.
Really?

If that's reality, that whole process needs to be changed.
That's unacceptable to abridge and violate people's rights
and then make us jump through a bunch of hoops
"to restore the rights we already had if this bill hadn't been imposed on us against our will"
That's backwards, unnatural by going against the will of the people, and totally unsustainable. It costs more to fight it, and would cost less to resolve conflicts in advance BEFORE and INSTEAD of passing a bill with disputed flaws in it.

So given the fact that nobody really agrees to this bill,
it should be easy to push for a simple correction by letting people redirect the funding for health care to the parties they are donating money to anyway to try to "lobby" for the health care proposals they really want. So why not take those party donations and use them directly to SET UP the health care plan.

And now with this fallout over the orientation and gender bill,
same thing, as with the clashing beliefs over the marriage policies.

If your beliefs don't agree or can't be reconciled, then
SEPARATE THEM FROM GOVT THAT IS REQUIRED TO REPRESENT ALL PEOPLE

Since we CLEARLY don't agree on beliefs, it makes More sense to separate
by party, which are organized around beliefs shared in common by members.

That's reality Jack
People want to be governed by their CONSENT
Nobody wants "taxation without representation"

So if govt is abused to violate people's natural rights
OF COURSE THEY ARE GOING TO DISSENT.

So then we have to fix the problem, until consent is restored
and civil contracts carry authority of law based on consent of the governed people/taxpayers affected.

We are not a democracy. Stop thinking like we are.

We have republic structures. But people CHOOSE who to affiliate with
depending on who represents and includes our interests, and what
we need to express our consent or dissent and resolve our grievances.

People are democratic by nature, in that we want to have a say in policies,
contracts and relations that affect us. That is our human nature.

Collectively, we DO have to balance the individual will with what works for society and
the groups we organize under, whether nations or religions, organizations, business or nonprofits, schools etc.

That's what the Bill of Rights was set up to do:
to make sure Collective authority/influence of govt
was not abused to override the individual rights of citizens.

So what I'm asking Jack is to apply this same "checks and balances"
to other relations between "individual and collective authority"
Not just federal govt under the Constitution (where equal rights
was later extended to States by the 14th Amendment
and to Public Institutions by the Civil Rights Act),
but also between individuals and corporations,
individuals and political parties, religious organizations,
nonprofits or any other collective entity (even the City level
of govt that acts as a private corporation).

Just because we follow the representative structure
DOES NOT MEAN WE LOSE OUR RIGHT TO CONSENT
If policies don't represent us, or if they violate our beliefs rights interests or consent,
we have the "right to petition to redress grievances"
we have the right NOT to be "deprived of liberty without due process of
law to PROVE that we committed a crime or contributed to an abuse for which we
deserve to give up some freedom to correct or prevent that problem"
(where govt must use the LEAST restrictive means
and also seek the most economical ways, according to the Code of Ethics)

We can have BOTH Jack4jill
we can exercise democratic processes of representation
WITHIN our self-chosen affiliations and groups,
while we follow a representative/republic structure.

These two are not in conflict, but ideally the
policies we support should respect both
democratic principles and unity as a republic under collective laws.

Neither should undermine the other.
see Code of Ethics for Govt Service:
ethics-commission.net

As I said, I can't help you, I live in the real world.

You live in the past, that has never fixed this problem.
The govt we have now is UNSUSTAINABLE.

I live in the future that is catching up with the present.
The solutions that ARE sustainable will have to replace what isn't working.
So the steps I propose are to make that transition,
from what is backlogging govt with programs nobody agrees how to fix,
to rewarding taxpayers for investing in solutions we AGREE we'd rather fund.

That's the only thing that will work.