Justin Amash Will Use Federal Dollars to Protect Transgenderism as President

[Brian4Liberty]

“I think that people can take the term ‘sex’ that's in federal law and interpret it to mean things beyond what it traditionally meant,” said Amash. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule any day now on that interpretation, as to whether trans Americans are protected from discrimination on the job by a key provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in employment because of sex.
...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dawnst...h-says-i-would-protect-transgender-americans/

Sounds to me like Amash is just talking about firing someone on the basis of "sex", and applying that to transgender people. Doesn't sound like new spending of any kind.

Also in that article:

However, the record shows that when it came time to vote whether to condemn the president’s ban on trans troops serving in the U.S. Military, then-Republican Amash voted “present” rather than take a stand. He did not join five of his GOP colleagues who broke rank with the president and aligned with Democrats to pass the non-binding resolution.

Following publication of this post, the Amash campaign reached out to note that the congressman did cast a subsequent vote on an amendment in June 2019, in which the House moved to block the Department of Defense from spending appropriated funds to implement the trans military ban. Rep. Amash was one of nine Republicans to vote in favor of the amendment and it passed, 243-183, with a dozen members of the House not casting a vote.

But a month later — just days after switching parties — the congressman cast a vote against another amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA. The amendment by Rep. Jackie Speier (D) Calif., would enshrine into law that any person who meets gender-neutral occupational standards can serve in the military regardless of race, color, national origin, religion or sex, including gender identity or sexual orientation, as The Hill reported in July 2019. Rep. Amash is recorded as opposing this amendment that was aimed at reversing the president’s trans military ban.

Here’s what a campaign spokesperson said in response to a question about his “no” vote:

“The Speier amendment went around the executive order and instead changed the law to add a new standard of "equality of treatment" for everyone in the Armed Forces (not just transgender persons). It's not clear what impact this new standard would have in a military context, or whether it was appropriately drafted for that context given the military's mandate to maximize the nation's defenses with available resources, so the feeling was that it deserved more careful consideration and deliberation than a minimally debated amendment.”

 

[jmdrake]

https://reason.com/video/justin-ama...ident-who-is-normal-honest-practical-capable/

Disagree with treating a choice to change one's sex with one's actual sex and expanding the Federal Government power in this regards. I'm ambivalent about the border. Right now Mexico doesn't want us going down there. Disagree with government action on "climate change." The only sensible government action would be to build new nuclear power plants, especially thorium reactors. I like that Amash voted against the 2.2 trillion dollar boondoggle.

During the coronavirus pandemic, Amash has castigated federal agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and the Food and Drug Administration, first for botching containment efforts and then for asserting monopoly control over testing. He was one of a mere handful of no votes on the $2.2 trillion CARES Act, arguing that all relief payments should go directly to individuals and households rather than corporations, nonprofits, or government agencies.

 

[jmdrake]

Sounds to me like Amash is just talking about firing someone on the basis of "sex", and applying that to transgender people. Doesn't sound like new spending of any kind.

That would mean new EEOC complaints and a bigger EEOC caseload would require increased funding so yes, it does sound like new spending. But worse it sounds like less freedom. We are moving from civil rights based on how people were born to civil rights based on people's personal choices which limits the choice of others. Does a vegan restaurant have to hire a meat eating publicist?

 

[Swordsmyth]

Sounds to me like Amash is just talking about firing someone on the basis of "sex", and applying that to transgender people. Doesn't sound like new spending of any kind.

Also in that article:

It sounds like new federal lawsuits and prosecutions.
Do those not cost money?

 

[enhanced_deficit]

“I would protect transgender Americans under the protections that exist for sex,” Amash said during a radio interview on Friday.

Amash, who claims to be a crusader against government overreach, would expand current federal laws that are on the books to protect trannies.

“I think that people can take the term ‘sex’ that’s in federal law and interpret it to mean things beyond what it traditionally meant,” said Amash.
...

Source: Big League Politics

With US debt approaching $25 Trllion, when will public servants end their addiction of spending taxpayers money like there is no tomorrow?

Hopefully Amash would cut spending across the board and promptly flip-flop on any taxpayers money spending promises after winning election.


That siad, is this source pro-small gov/anti big spending or just a partisan propaganda site for the agenda of Deep Zionism/Globalist Neocons lobbies that buy US politicians to scam the public (gullible/less-informed wing)?


If this is not globalist neocons/deep zicons propaganada site, it is odd that massive taxpayers dollars expenditures like these did not register ?

trump lgbtq global campaign site:bigleaguepolitics.com

https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+lgbtq+global+campaign+site:bigleaguepolitics.com

It looks like there aren't any great matches for your search

trump $38Billion taxpayers money Israel aid site:bigleaguepolitics.com

It looks like there aren't any great matches for your search

Trump admin. launches global effort to end criminalization of homosexuality

The Trump Pride Tee. (donaldjtrump.com) US President Donald Trump is marketing a “Trump Pride Tee” in his online shop, next to “Make America Great Again” hats.

Trump becomes first Republican president to promote LGBT Pride Month

 

[Brian4Liberty]

That would mean new EEOC complaints and a bigger EEOC caseload would require increased funding so yes, it does sound like new spending. But worse it sounds like less freedom. We are moving from civil rights based on how people were born to civil rights based on people's personal choices which limits the choice of others. Does a vegan restaurant have to hire a meat eating publicist?

You could certainly make valid arguments against the law itself. But I can see how Amash is suggesting it be applied. Let's say a woman named Terry, who looks and dresses like a man gets a job. One day it is revealed the Terry is not a man but a woman, and is fired. Was that firing on the basis of sex? They fired someone because they didn't want a woman.

It sounds like new federal lawsuits and prosecutions.
Do those not cost money?

Only if Congress has increased their budget.

 

[Matt Collins]

Does it even matter? Amash is not going to be potus. He's a protest vote if you don't like Trump or Biden. Why expend your energy arguing some minor policy point that he will never do anything about?

And this is a very valid line of thinking. Amash might get my vote simply as a protest despite the fact I disagree with him on some big things.

However it is important for the ideology and labeling not to get watered down. So if someone calls themselves a libertarian but yet they support big government nonsense, then they should indeed get called out for it. Two recent examples...Paul Ryan said he was a libertarian. Obama said he supported the 2nd Amendment. Obviously both are false.

 

[Swordsmyth]

You could certainly make valid arguments against the law itself. But I can see how Amash is suggesting it be applied. Let's say a woman named Terry, who looks and dresses like a man gets a job. One day it is revealed the Terry is not a man but a woman, and is fired. Was that firing on the basis of sex? They fired someone because they didn't want a woman.



Only if Congress has increased their budget.

It's all a giant violation of the right to free association and a federal intrusion into what should be a state or local matter if it is going to be dealt with by government at all.
And Congress WILL increase their budget to deal with all the new cases.

 

[Matt Collins]

Getting concerned how far he is moving in another direction so far so quickly

For those of us paying some attention it hasn't been a quick turn in that direction.

What I want to know is how the hell he kept getting elected in Michigan while supporting the climate change hoax?

 

[susano]

From that interview:

Justin Amash: It is really important. And I believe climate change is happening. I want to be clear about that because you sometimes hear from elected officials and it's not clear where they stand on that. I believe there is climate change. I believe it's very important. I believe that humans do affect it, and that we should take action with respect to climate change.

What action?

Whoa, trannies and global warming. smh.

I recall, a few years ago, watching part of town hall with him, where it struck me, "OMG, he's a progressive". I think it might have been about repealing Obamacare and though he was in favor of it, it was the way in which he pandered to the commies in the crowd that made me really suspicious of him. While his voting record wasn't affirming my spidey sense about him, I remained suspicious. Now, it's like he's removing the mask.

I think this guy is angry inside and has a massive chip on his shoulder. I do not think he likes "America" (the concept, traditions, etc).

 

[susano]

Sounds to me like Amash is just talking about firing someone on the basis of "sex", and applying that to transgender people. Doesn't sound like new spending of any kind.

“I think that people can take the term ‘sex’ that's in federal law and interpret it to mean things beyond what it traditionally meant,” said Amash. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule any day now on that interpretation, as to whether trans Americans are protected from discrimination on the job by a key provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in employment because of sex.

"You can stick a feather in your ass but it doesn't make you a chicken."

- RAMZPAUL


WTF is Amash talking about there? When he says "people", is he including himself in thinking the term "sex" can now mean anything someone decides it does? If he thinks the term can be twisted in federal law, then the word means nothing outside of the law, either. Sex means male or female, period, and this cultural Marxist critical theory BS of sex being a social construct or some kind of subjective reality is NOT THE TRUTH. I don't give a flying fuck how someone chooses to present themselves but do not try to indulge me in the lie that a man can be a woman or a woman a man. Amash is indicating he wants to force the sane to engage in the delusions of people with mental illness - and gender dysphoria is a mental illness. Enshrining such madness into federal law or any law is immoral because it's a LIE. If that happens, open the floodgates because it will be applied everywhere, including in intimate spaces reserved for one sex or the other. It will legitimize poisoning the minds of children - who are already the targets of the most perverse sexual predators in schools, medicine and mental health - with tans brainwashing, deliberately confusing them and applying social engineering. This has nothing to do non liking someone who has gender dysphoria or saying they don't have a right to live as they please, it's about the truth. Amash is an enemy of the truth on a very profound level here.

 

[jmdrake]

You could certainly make valid arguments against the law itself. But I can see how Amash is suggesting it be applied. Let's say a woman named Terry, who looks and dresses like a man gets a job. One day it is revealed the Terry is not a man but a woman, and is fired. Was that firing on the basis of sex? They fired someone because they didn't want a woman.

There are some jobs where it is still allowable to discriminate on the basis of sex. The obvious is a place like Hooters. But take sex appeal out of it. Let's say a summer camp hires a girls camp counselor. Most likely that hire would be a woman. If it was a man dressed as a woman, and no I don't mean a transgender who has taken hormones and/or gotten his/her penis cut off, I mean an actual still 100% physiology of a man but is just in drag (think Ru Paul as opposed to Caitlyn Jenner) then should it be illegal to fire that man? Because...that's what we are really talking about. Or what about women's sports? Even with the hormones and the penis removal, a Fallon Fox has a good chance of beating the crap out of a Rhonda Rousey. Even the woman who beat Fallon Fox was clear that she was physically outmatched, was only able to beat Fallon using superior jujitsu, and that she wouldn't be able to do that again. On the flipside, a naturally born woman who wants to be a man and takes male hormones has a physical advantage over naturally born women who don't take male hormones. To try to treat this the same a sex discrimination shows an extreme level of naivete on the part of Justin Amash.

Only if Congress has increased their budget.

That congress would at some point increase the EEOC budget if its duties got expanded is a given.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Whoa, trannies and global warming. smh.

I recall, a few years ago, watching part of town hall with him, where it struck me, "OMG, he's a progressive". I think it might have been about repealing Obamacare and though he was in favor of it, it was the way in which he pandered to the commies in the crowd that made me really suspicious of him. While his voting record wasn't affirming my spidey sense about him, I remained suspicious. Now, it's like he's removing the mask.

I think this guy is angry inside and has a massive chip on his shoulder. I do not think he likes "America" (the concept, traditions, etc).

It's becoming clear that he wants to destroy America.

 

[MaxPower]

Disagree with treating a choice to change one's sex with one's actual sex and expanding the Federal Government power in this regards. I'm ambivalent about the border. Right now Mexico doesn't want us going down there. Disagree with government action on "climate change." The only sensible government action would be to build new nuclear power plants, especially thorium reactors. I like that Amash voted against the 2.2 trillion dollar boondoggle.

During the coronavirus pandemic, Amash has castigated federal agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and the Food and Drug Administration, first for botching containment efforts and then for asserting monopoly control over testing. He was one of a mere handful of no votes on the $2.2 trillion CARES Act, arguing that all relief payments should go directly to individuals and households rather than corporations, nonprofits, or government agencies.

Judging by this interview, it looks like he does support nuclear power and at least a primarily private-sector-based climate change policy:
https://reason.com/podcast/justin-amash-wants-to-be-the-first-libertarian-president/
"And some of the things we can do, for example, would be to look into further nuclear power, and finding ways to get nuclear power in this country because it is a relatively safe form of production and very low emissions compared to other forms of energy.

There's a lot of pushback about that, whenever you talk about nuclear power, but I think it's important to consider it. I also think we need to make sure we're not subsidizing any particular energy sources. So to the extent there are oil subsidies or any other subsidies, we should get those subsidies out of the way and allow people in the market to make decisions about how they get their energy."

 

[tebowlives]

He is a commie and it is no surprise you would vote for him.

Because funding transgenderism is a make or break policy and by golly anyone who wants that isn't fit to be President.
most important issues
1. Transgenderism

and way down the list
99. lower federal government spending
100. keep us out of Federal entanglements

We'll get to those 2 unimportant issues later because transgenderism is the most important issue after all. The economy could collapse if this issue isn't dealt with front and center. A terrorist attack is eminent unless this most important issue is dealt with.

 

[tebowlives]

It's becoming clear that he wants to destroy America.

It's becoming clear that you back tyrants like Trump over freedom lovers like Amash. I get it, he doesn't like the big government President you like. Don't make it personal, make it about policy. You remember policy right?

 

[tebowlives]

Whoa, trannies and global warming. smh.

I recall, a few years ago, watching part of town hall with him, where it struck me, "OMG, he's a progressive". I think it might have been about repealing Obamacare and though he was in favor of it, it was the way in which he pandered to the commies in the crowd that made me really suspicious of him. While his voting record wasn't affirming my spidey sense about him, I remained suspicious. Now, it's like he's removing the mask.

I think this guy is angry inside and has a massive chip on his shoulder. I do not think he likes "America" (the concept, traditions, etc).

Because how he votes doesn't matter and a scenario you made up does?

 

[vita3]

What a waste of time discussing Justin Amash for President.

Any solid Libertarians running?

 

[jmdrake]

And this is a very valid line of thinking. Amash might get my vote simply as a protest despite the fact I disagree with him on some big things.

However it is important for the ideology and labeling not to get watered down. So if someone calls themselves a libertarian but yet they support big government nonsense, then they should indeed get called out for it. Two recent examples...Paul Ryan said he was a libertarian. Obama said he supported the 2nd Amendment. Obviously both are false.

Trump also said he supported the 2nd amendment but accomplished more to undermine it than did President Obama. Case in point the bumpfire stock ban. Trump floated red flag laws before backing away from them. He even suckered Rand into temporarily supporting them. (Worst move Rand ever made and in ever). And Trump has now twice pushed the idea of an assault weapons ban, once as a private citizen and once as president. By contrast Obama undid executive orders that banned guns on Amtrack and in Federal Parks. Trump is an undercover progressive himself.

But yeah, bad messaging on Amash's part. This kind of reminds me of the Gary Johnson "Jewish baker must bake a Nazi wedding cake" fiasco. Some people in the libertarian movement confuse libertarian with libertine. From the libertine movement, anyone who impinges on my "freedom" must be opposed by any means necessary. So if a performance venue refuses to allow an performance artist to smear herself with feces that's a violation of her free speech rights and must be opposed by the gubmint.

 

[Matt Collins]

Trump also said he supported the 2nd amendment but accomplished more to undermine it than did President Obama. Case in point the bumpfire stock ban. Trump floated red flag laws before backing away from them. He even suckered Rand into temporarily supporting them. (Worst move Rand ever made and in ever). And Trump has now twice pushed the idea of an assault weapons ban, once as a private citizen and once as president. By contrast Obama undid executive orders that banned guns on Amtrack and in Federal Parks. Trump is an undercover progressive himself.

Exactly, which is why I might vote for the LP nominee.