Skip to content
Breaking News Alert Here's How The Media Are Lying Right Now: Associated Press Rehabs Hunter Biden Edition

Transgender Your Businesses, Nonprofits, And Schools, Or No Federal Grants For You

The Biden administration is poised to force every recipient of federal grants into transgender policies.

Share

On the heels of linking parent support for children’s innate sex with child abuse, the Biden administration is poised to force every recipient of federal grants into transgender policies. The proposed rules would expand all federal laws that ban Americans from respecting the differences between men and women to include homosexual and transsexual privileges, or “sexual orientation and gender identity” preferences. More than 100 such laws exist.

The proposed rules would also delete existing language requiring all federal grants to adhere to the Constitution in “protecting free speech, religious liberty, public welfare, the environment, and prohibiting discrimination,” according to the Center for Political Justice (CPJ). If such rules pass, they would license government discrimination against religious Americans, which is unconstitutional.

Federal contracts and grants employ more people than the federal government does directly. In 2022, federal grants were worth $700 billion, nearly what American taxpayers spend on the U.S. military.

This “sweeping overhaul” of Office of Management and Budget rules would “apply across federal agencies that describe how grants and cooperative agreements should be administered and audited,” CPJ says. In other words, these rules apply to every one of the hundreds of federal agencies.

This rules change is one of dozens the Biden administration has been making to apply the 2020 Bostock v. Clayton County Supreme Court decision to every aspect of federal power. That 6-3 decision, authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, whom queer activists targeted as the likely swing vote, inserted “sexual orientation and gender identity” privileges into the word “sex” in a law banning “sex discrimination” in employment.

In that decision, the court overrode 60 years of precedents in 30 of 30 courts where such cases were tried to fatuously pretend that Congress in the 1960s meant to include queer entitlements in laws that resulted in female entitlements — years before the word “transgender” was coined and in a time when homosexuals could not get security clearances and were still being separated from the military due to their sexual attraction to fellow soldiers.

Even LGBT activists spent decades between the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 2020’s Bostock demanding a queer carve-out in federal “antidiscrimination law.” That means not even queer activists believed the Civil Rights Act protected homosexual, transsexual, or any other queer identity — until it was expedient to lie about that because the Supreme Court would sanction it.

“The entire Federal Judiciary will be mired for years in disputes about the reach of the Court’s reasoning,” Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas wrote in their Bostock dissent. They were right.

This federal grants regulation that would void Americans’ First Amendment rights will be one of the dozens immediately sued in federal court as a direct result of the Biden administration’s Bostock-citing queerings of federal law. Courts could instead be hearing other cases that actually uphold Americans’ rights had the Supreme Court not violated the Constitution by legislating from the bench in Bostock.

CPJ notes that public comment on this regulation is open until Dec. 4, “and can be submitted easily via www.regulations.gov (type OMB-2023-0017-0001 into the search box to find this NPRM).”

LGBT extremists’ goal is to use every lever of federal power to force Americans to do and say what LGBT activists want. That is un-American and totalitarian: It assumes the right to tell people that they may not act as if they believe anything other than what government officials tell them.

That’s why there should be no “antidiscrimination” laws: It’s none of any government’s d-mned business whom Americans choose to hire or fire or admit into clubs, or any other exercise of free association. That’s what freedom means.

People who want to be free have to accept that sometimes it results in speech and actions we don’t like but are perfectly within every human’s natural rights. Either everyone gets these freedoms, or we edge toward a totalitarian system in which government asserts the right to tell you what you must say, who you have to let into places women and children undress, and who you must be friends and neighbors with.

Americans aren’t racists anymore. It’s been 60 years since the Civil Rights Act. We should get our freedom of association back now before its erasure destroys the rest of the Bill of Rights and Constitution — our remaining bulwarks for preserving a free people.


1
0
Access Commentsx
()
x