I'm pretty sure I don't recall any Western or European governments being overthrown following the revelations of European governments spying on their citizens, other EU countries, governments and people overseas, or the US.
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden could have been acting under the influence of the Russian government, the heads of Germany's foreign and domestic intelligence agencies said on Friday.
Do you know any good Kim Philby or Benedict Arnold jokes?
Snowden would get a fair trial, the problem is that he is actually guilty of the offenses with which he has been charged and the defense he wants to offer isn't legally available.
Too bad he didn't go to Congress instead of the People's Republic of China and Russia with the nearly two million documents he stole,
The founding fathers had a vision. It certainly didn't include anything like the FBI, CIA, or NSA spying on their own countrymen.
George Washington ran a spy ring that spied on both the British and fellow colonists. Benjamin Franklin opened other peoples mail to gather intelligence.
Washington took his role as spymaster in chief quite seriously, laying the groundwork for today’s complex intelligence community and recognizing that civilian observation, mobilization and insight was just as important as military might. Without this foresight, the outcome of the Revolutionary War might have been quite different. The war for independence from Great Britain was not just one of battles and firearms, it was one of intelligence. As one defeated British intelligence officer is often quoted as saying, “Washington did not really outfight the British. He simply out-spied us.” -
What do you think General Washington would have done with someone that stole secret war plans of the Continental Army and then fled to a foreign country as General Arnold did? What did they do with spies and traitors?
What was Snowden's real agenda? There really isn't any way to know for sure, is there?
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden could have been acting under the influence of the Russian government, the heads of Germany's foreign and domestic intelligence agencies said on Friday.
-----
Any efforts to discredit this man are a fucking disgrace that should be called out as such.
Snowden has admitted his guilt publicly. There isn't any genuine doubt he is guilty of the offenses with which he is charged, and it all could have been avoided if he had gone to Congress. Because of his actions al Qaeda, ISIS, North Korea, and other enemies and adversaries of the US have had direct access to large collections of national defense secrets of the United States, Canada, Great Britain, Australia, Germany, France, and others. What a hero.
It occurred to me, and this is a long shot, that actually the server was a honey pot and the information contained therein was misinformation, for foreign intelligence services to enjoy.
I would consider most information from Hillary Clinton to be misinformation, mainly for consumption by the American public, but if foreigners get drawn in... well.... I'm certain she thinks it will server her purposes.
That server isn't so much a honeypot as it is a reverse honeypot. She thought it was great! - but now it is now stuck to her and will be very difficult to get off.
The ones that have classified or sensitive information are going to be redacted, is that some kind of surprise? It shouldn't be if you have the government experience that you state.
Most of the emails aren't classified and a large number of them have been released.
hey, conservative: you really want to throw rocks around glass houses?
are you SURE you want to be holier-than-thou?
We aren't talking about "thou," we're talking about Hillary Clinton.
Do you seriously contend that nobody in public office rises about the corruption and malfeasance of the Clintons?
Who else would be so brazen to post a public money bucket (The Clinton Foundation) for "donations" by people who just "coincidentally" had business coming before the State Department?
If nothing on Hillary's server was classified it should be released without redaction for full review and inspection by any party. That has not happened, and it won't happen. FOI requests regarding information on her server are denied almost as soon as they are filed.
You aren't giving credit where credit is due. Judicial Watch has a lawsuit pursuing information along these lines, and is making progress. (They accept donations in their fight against corruption.)
In fact you can thank them for the progress being made:
It was Judicial Watch’s litigation that almost certainly forced the State Department to publicly disclose Hillary Clinton’s secret email account that is now the subject of a scathing Inspector General Report. A statement by the State Department in a February 2, 2015, status report in response to a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit was the first notice to the public and the court that State had failed to thoroughly search all of Clinton’s email records: “[The State Department] has discovered that additional searches for documents potentially responsive to the FOIA must be conducted.” That statement was the first acknowledgement of Clinton’s secret email. And now, nearly a year and a half later, the State Department’s own Inspector General is confirming the gravity of Clinton’s end run around the law. Judicial Watch already uncovered much of the information cited in this report. But the OIG report will be helpful in upcoming questioning of witnesses about the Clinton email matter.
In the world outside your head, real investigations and prosecutions take time after a complaint has been filed, as opposed to imaginary investigations or poo flinging.
Give us one example, you lying, bootlicking piece of shit.
-jcr
I'll take pity on you and give you two sources:
From the article (which you apparently didn't read):
Crane filed a complaint against Shelley and Halbrooks, detailing many more alleged misdeeds than reported in this article. The Office of Special Counsel, the US agency charged with investigating such matters, concluded in March of 2016 that there was a “substantial likelihood” that Crane’s accusations were well-founded. The OSC’s choice of the term “substantial likelihood” was telling. It could have ruled there was merely a “reasonable belief” Crane’s charges were true, in which case no further action would have been required. By finding instead that there was a “substantial likelihood”, the OSC triggered a process that legally required secretary of defense Ashton Carter to organise a fresh investigation of Crane’s allegations. Because no federal agency is allowed to investigate itself, that inquiry is being conducted by the Justice Department.
That sounds very much like the typical scapegoat technique. Find a few heads, doesn't really matter too much who they are, and let them roll. Make sure this it publicized widely and touted as a big cleansing.
It's not "scapegoating" if they are the ones that really broke the law in a major fashion leading to major consequences, is it? So yes, it really does matter who they are and what they did.
As to the rest of your post I agree that it is unfortunate, and probably not the only post you've made that I would find unfortunate.
"Russian Revolution" is the collective term for a pair of revolutions in Russia in 1917, which dismantled the Tsarist autocracy and led to the eventual rise of the Soviet Union. -- Russian Revolution
I'm sure that a lot of French and Russian people thought that "mob "justice"" wouldn't be dangerous to them, but that didn't really turn out to be the case. See: French Revolution (1789), Russian Revolution (1917).
I see you "judiciously" left out the fact that the people high up in the DOD and DOD IG suspected of criminal misconduct in the retaliation and abuse against the whistle blowers are under investigation and stand a good chance of going to jail?
Snowden should have gone to Congress. Instead he screwed the US and its allies badly.
Your claim that "Clapper's brazen perjury before Congress (without consequences) is proof that Snowden had to run" is rubbish too. Congress already knew the truth of the matter, Clapper had briefed them in secret session. Otherwise how do you think that unethical Senator Wyden knew to ask the question he did, in the way he did, when and where he did? Ron Wyden should never hold a seat on the Intelligence committee again. He is almost as bad of scum as the senior people in DoD that abused their power to prosecute and persecute Drake.
Outrage is brewing on the Left and Right over charges that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper lied to Congress about NSA data collection. But the outrage is misdirected. What is outrageous is not that Clapper tried to protect classified information in an open session, but that Senator Ron Wyden asked him the question in open session the first place.
Wyden, an opponent of the NSA program, asked Clapper in front of television cameras: “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?”
Wyden knew the answer. He knew the answer was classified. He knew that Clapper could not answer it in open session. Yet he asked it anyway.
Wyden was either trying to embarrass Clapper, trip him up, or force him to reveal classified information. Whatever the motivation, it was a reprehensible thing to do. And it put Clapper in an untenable position. There was no truthful answer he could have given in open session that would not have revealed a top secret intelligence program.
If Clapper had simply said “I will be happy to discuss that in closed session,” it would have set off a firestorm of speculation, and been seen as a tacit admission that the US was collecting such data. The program would have been effectively exposed.
If he had said “Yes, but I can’t discuss it in open session,” he would have confirmed the existence of the program, and people would have jumped to all sorts of false conclusions that the NSA was reading our emails and listening to our phone calls (which they are not). And Clapper would not have been at liberty to explain what the NSA was actually doing, and the fact that no Americans’ phone calls were being monitored or recorded.
Clapper did not mislead Congress, as some have suggested, because the committee had already been briefed on the program in closed session. Wyden knew the answer to his question. He wasn’t trying to get information — he was trying to expose a secret in open session.
The fact is Senator Wyden should never have put Clapper in such a position. As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, with a top secret security clearance and privileged access to classified intelligence, Wyden has a sworn responsibility to protect our nation’s secrets. Instead, he tried to force their disclosure in a public forum.
But who will watch (or protect) the watchers? Crane started blowing the whistle in 2002, so if there was an effective process for investigating his reports, you'd think it'd have concluded 14 years later...
The original issues that were the subject of actual whistle blowing were settled long ago. The "Trailblzer" program was defunded. FTA -
In line with standard procedure, these investigative findings were relayed to the House and Senate committees overseeing the NSA – and this helped nudge Congress to end funding for the Trailblazer programme.
The 4th Amendment issues have been addressed in various ways as well, although perhaps not to everyone's satisfaction. The problem there is that it is there are a number of different issues with each having their own scope and history of jurisprudence. Not everyone likes where things have ended up even if it is legal. There is potential for more conflict over that since Congress doesn't have the authority to override a Constitutional power of the President. And then there is the holding of the Supreme Court that phone records are ordinary business records. Lots of people don't like that. We'll see how it goes.
The rest of the matter has been investigations and prosecution as the result of abuse and criminal behavior by by some people associated with the DOD IG and possibly the Department of Justice. There will probably be at least a couple of people high up in the DoD and maybe DoJ that will go to jail over the retaliation and misconduct.
It looks like the system was pretty much working until some people high up in the system broke the rules, and now they will probably go to jail, as they should.
If we are going to put rulers on the money, we are no better than those we fought to get away from, where the money is propaganda for the ruling class.
If you have any idea as to why the Colonists fought the Revolution it doesn't seem to inform your position. The Revolution didn't have anything to do with who was on the money. "Ruling class"? Who do you think that is? It must be a pretty broad group if it includes Abraham Lincoln or the sons of nearly penniless immigrants like Ted Cruz.
Clearly you feel very threatened by someone not conforming to your views of sexuality, but that's really too bad.
Clearly you feel angst from people not conforming to your views of sexuality, but that's really too bad.
Just like racists half a century ago, you're just going to have to get with the times or become a member of an increasingly marginalized and impotent group of malcontents.
You know that sex selection abortion is common in various parts of the world now, right? How do you feel about that? Why shouldn't they be able to do that if abortion is legal? In 10-15 years, maybe sooner, advances in genetics will probably result in two things: sexual orientation selection abortions (in traditional cultures why have a son that won't have a family?) and genetic therapy combined with advanced brain treatments to transition someone from homosexual or with gender identity disorder to normal heterosexual. Will you oppose that? Why? You back sex reassignment so why not any of this? Is it some bigoted attachment to particular outcomes based on particular political values and social norms? What if homosexuality shrinks from 1.5% to.01% or.001% and transgenderism likewise shrinks?
The mainstreaming of homosexuality is already resulting in the loss of many icons of traditional gay culture in San Francisco and other places. If homosexuality decreases in frequency they could disappear quickly. Will you fight that like the deaf people fighting to preserve the unique deaf culture?
Will you adapt or become part of an increasingly marginalized and impotent group of malcontents?
And really, how does any of this harm you?
Issues of this sort impact the future since the choices society makes help determine if people have children, what the children are taught, how they behave, and what path society takes. Look at the pathetic behavior of the young "adults" on college campuses today. Do you provide your new hires the trigger warnings, safe spaces, and protection from "microaggressions" that they have become accustomed to in college? (I'll bet not.) Look at Europe, they don't want to have children - too expensive / gets in the way of fun / career is the priority. The native population of Europe is currently entering an unprecedented demographic free fall while importing large numbers of foreign peoples that are hostile to their values. That will probably not end well. We are getting a taste of it now. How do you think it will be in 80 years when the native population has shriveled, is aged and in nursing homes? The new arrivals will take care of them, and eventually the homosexuals and transgendered in their own way.
Stam: "In North Carolina, you can have your birth certificate changed if you do reassignment surgery. It has been reported several places that we said it's your sex as designated at birth (that government agencies will use to define who can use bathrooms or changing facilities). And that is not correct.... It's not what you are at birth. It's based on your birth certificate, which can be changed."
--------
If people obey this law, it's going to massively RAISE the number of people who don't look like they belong in the restroom they're in.
That would only be true if there were "massive" numbers of "trans" people, which there isn't. Even homosexual only comprise about 1.5% of the population and they are more common.
Slashdot Mirror
You didn't by any chance get a list of cases that go to the IG and are proceed normally did you?
For example: DoD IG Semiannual Reports
No, I guess not. So the solution to a stove fire is to burn down the kitchen? Rubbish.
Probe launched into Pentagon handling of NSA whistleblower evidence
By the way, you did notice that Drake was able to get the program he opposed defunded by Congress, didn't you? Nah, probably not.
Probe launched into Pentagon handling of NSA whistleblower evidence
And if the US Government gets ahold of Snowden, these three things are what they will charge,
Snowden faces charges under the Espionage Act. He has made public statements that are essentially admissions of guilt.
.....just look at how the definition of "terrorism" has evolved in the last 10 or so years.
Legally not much at all. Rhetorically it is frequently misused on Slashdot.
I'm pretty sure I don't recall any Western or European governments being overthrown following the revelations of European governments spying on their citizens, other EU countries, governments and people overseas, or the US.
In Soviet Russia... Snowden releases NSA documents!
Indeed.
German spies imply Snowden leaked files for Russia
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden could have been acting under the influence of the Russian government, the heads of Germany's foreign and domestic intelligence agencies said on Friday.
Do you know any good Kim Philby or Benedict Arnold jokes?
Snowden would get a fair trial, the problem is that he is actually guilty of the offenses with which he has been charged and the defense he wants to offer isn't legally available.
Too bad he didn't go to Congress instead of the People's Republic of China and Russia with the nearly two million documents he stole,
The founding fathers had a vision. It certainly didn't include anything like the FBI, CIA, or NSA spying on their own countrymen.
George Washington ran a spy ring that spied on both the British and fellow colonists. Benjamin Franklin opened other peoples mail to gather intelligence.
George Washington, Spymaster
Washington took his role as spymaster in chief quite seriously, laying the groundwork for today’s complex intelligence community and recognizing that civilian observation, mobilization and insight was just as important as military might. Without this foresight, the outcome of the Revolutionary War might have been quite different. The war for independence from Great Britain was not just one of battles and firearms, it was one of intelligence. As one defeated British intelligence officer is often quoted as saying, “Washington did not really outfight the British. He simply out-spied us.” -
What do you think General Washington would have done with someone that stole secret war plans of the Continental Army and then fled to a foreign country as General Arnold did? What did they do with spies and traitors?
What was Snowden's real agenda? There really isn't any way to know for sure, is there?
German spies imply Snowden leaked files for Russia
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden could have been acting under the influence of the Russian government, the heads of Germany's foreign and domestic intelligence agencies said on Friday.
-----
Any efforts to discredit this man are a fucking disgrace that should be called out as such.
Snowden has admitted his guilt publicly. There isn't any genuine doubt he is guilty of the offenses with which he is charged, and it all could have been avoided if he had gone to Congress. Because of his actions al Qaeda, ISIS, North Korea, and other enemies and adversaries of the US have had direct access to large collections of national defense secrets of the United States, Canada, Great Britain, Australia, Germany, France, and others. What a hero.
It occurred to me, and this is a long shot, that actually the server was a honey pot and the information contained therein was misinformation, for foreign intelligence services to enjoy.
I would consider most information from Hillary Clinton to be misinformation, mainly for consumption by the American public, but if foreigners get drawn in ... well .... I'm certain she thinks it will server her purposes.
That server isn't so much a honeypot as it is a reverse honeypot. She thought it was great! - but now it is now stuck to her and will be very difficult to get off.
The ones that have classified or sensitive information are going to be redacted, is that some kind of surprise? It shouldn't be if you have the government experience that you state.
Most of the emails aren't classified and a large number of them have been released.
This was a clear example of security through obscurity. The server was behind a NAT protected by a Huawei router. What could go wrong?
She thought she was safe behind 5 proxies.
hey, conservative: you really want to throw rocks around glass houses?
are you SURE you want to be holier-than-thou?
We aren't talking about "thou," we're talking about Hillary Clinton.
Do you seriously contend that nobody in public office rises about the corruption and malfeasance of the Clintons?
Who else would be so brazen to post a public money bucket (The Clinton Foundation) for "donations" by people who just "coincidentally" had business coming before the State Department?
If nothing on Hillary's server was classified it should be released without redaction for full review and inspection by any party. That has not happened, and it won't happen. FOI requests regarding information on her server are denied almost as soon as they are filed.
You aren't giving credit where credit is due. Judicial Watch has a lawsuit pursuing information along these lines, and is making progress. (They accept donations in their fight against corruption.)
In fact you can thank them for the progress being made:
Judicial Watch Statement on State Department OIG Report on Hillary Clinton’s Email Practices
It was Judicial Watch’s litigation that almost certainly forced the State Department to publicly disclose Hillary Clinton’s secret email account that is now the subject of a scathing Inspector General Report. A statement by the State Department in a February 2, 2015, status report in response to a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit was the first notice to the public and the court that State had failed to thoroughly search all of Clinton’s email records: “[The State Department] has discovered that additional searches for documents potentially responsive to the FOIA must be conducted.” That statement was the first acknowledgement of Clinton’s secret email. And now, nearly a year and a half later, the State Department’s own Inspector General is confirming the gravity of Clinton’s end run around the law. Judicial Watch already uncovered much of the information cited in this report. But the OIG report will be helpful in upcoming questioning of witnesses about the Clinton email matter.
Judicial Watch Begins Discovery in Hillary Clinton Email Matter
More on the Clinton email scandal at Judicial Watch.
Hillary Clinton failed to report several hacking attempts, grew afraid of opening emails
In the world outside your head, real investigations and prosecutions take time after a complaint has been filed, as opposed to imaginary investigations or poo flinging.
You seem to have a shoe or boot fetish.
Give us one example, you lying, bootlicking piece of shit.
-jcr
I'll take pity on you and give you two sources:
From the article (which you apparently didn't read):
Crane filed a complaint against Shelley and Halbrooks, detailing many more alleged misdeeds than reported in this article. The Office of Special Counsel, the US agency charged with investigating such matters, concluded in March of 2016 that there was a “substantial likelihood” that Crane’s accusations were well-founded. The OSC’s choice of the term “substantial likelihood” was telling. It could have ruled there was merely a “reasonable belief” Crane’s charges were true, in which case no further action would have been required. By finding instead that there was a “substantial likelihood”, the OSC triggered a process that legally required secretary of defense Ashton Carter to organise a fresh investigation of Crane’s allegations. Because no federal agency is allowed to investigate itself, that inquiry is being conducted by the Justice Department.
and ...
Probe launched into Pentagon handling of NSA whistleblower evidence
One other thing: Lazy, ignorant, and foul-mouthed is no way to go through life.
That sounds very much like the typical scapegoat technique. Find a few heads, doesn't really matter too much who they are, and let them roll. Make sure this it publicized widely and touted as a big cleansing.
It's not "scapegoating" if they are the ones that really broke the law in a major fashion leading to major consequences, is it? So yes, it really does matter who they are and what they did.
As to the rest of your post I agree that it is unfortunate, and probably not the only post you've made that I would find unfortunate.
"Russian Revolution" is the collective term for a pair of revolutions in Russia in 1917, which dismantled the Tsarist autocracy and led to the eventual rise of the Soviet Union. -- Russian Revolution
1917 Russian Revolution
Russian Revolution of 1917
I see a list of people and sources that you don't like, but I don't see you provide any evidence whatsoever that anything in the post is wrong.
I'm sure that a lot of French and Russian people thought that "mob "justice"" wouldn't be dangerous to them, but that didn't really turn out to be the case. See: French Revolution (1789), Russian Revolution (1917).
disclaimer: chomsky adorns my mantle.
I assume that would be Cambodian genocide denier, anti-Semite, anti-American Noam Chomsky?
(This is rich, as is Chomsky: Noam Chomsky, Closet Capitalist. Interesting use of copyright too. )
I hope you cast a wider net for views than just fringe Left figures like Chomsky.
I see you "judiciously" left out the fact that the people high up in the DOD and DOD IG suspected of criminal misconduct in the retaliation and abuse against the whistle blowers are under investigation and stand a good chance of going to jail?
Snowden should have gone to Congress. Instead he screwed the US and its allies badly.
Your claim that "Clapper's brazen perjury before Congress (without consequences) is proof that Snowden had to run" is rubbish too. Congress already knew the truth of the matter, Clapper had briefed them in secret session. Otherwise how do you think that unethical Senator Wyden knew to ask the question he did, in the way he did, when and where he did? Ron Wyden should never hold a seat on the Intelligence committee again. He is almost as bad of scum as the senior people in DoD that abused their power to prosecute and persecute Drake.
Blame Wyden, not Clapper, for ‘lie’ to Congress on NSA surveillance
Outrage is brewing on the Left and Right over charges that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper lied to Congress about NSA data collection. But the outrage is misdirected. What is outrageous is not that Clapper tried to protect classified information in an open session, but that Senator Ron Wyden asked him the question in open session the first place.
Wyden, an opponent of the NSA program, asked Clapper in front of television cameras: “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?”
Wyden knew the answer. He knew the answer was classified. He knew that Clapper could not answer it in open session. Yet he asked it anyway.
Wyden was either trying to embarrass Clapper, trip him up, or force him to reveal classified information. Whatever the motivation, it was a reprehensible thing to do. And it put Clapper in an untenable position. There was no truthful answer he could have given in open session that would not have revealed a top secret intelligence program.
If Clapper had simply said “I will be happy to discuss that in closed session,” it would have set off a firestorm of speculation, and been seen as a tacit admission that the US was collecting such data. The program would have been effectively exposed.
If he had said “Yes, but I can’t discuss it in open session,” he would have confirmed the existence of the program, and people would have jumped to all sorts of false conclusions that the NSA was reading our emails and listening to our phone calls (which they are not). And Clapper would not have been at liberty to explain what the NSA was actually doing, and the fact that no Americans’ phone calls were being monitored or recorded.
Clapper did not mislead Congress, as some have suggested, because the committee had already been briefed on the program in closed session. Wyden knew the answer to his question. He wasn’t trying to get information — he was trying to expose a secret in open session.
The fact is Senator Wyden should never have put Clapper in such a position. As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, with a top secret security clearance and privileged access to classified intelligence, Wyden has a sworn responsibility to protect our nation’s secrets. Instead, he tried to force their disclosure in a public forum.
But who will watch (or protect) the watchers? Crane started blowing the whistle in 2002, so if there was an effective process for investigating his reports, you'd think it'd have concluded 14 years later...
The original issues that were the subject of actual whistle blowing were settled long ago. The "Trailblzer" program was defunded. FTA -
In line with standard procedure, these investigative findings were relayed to the House and Senate committees overseeing the NSA – and this helped nudge Congress to end funding for the Trailblazer programme.
The 4th Amendment issues have been addressed in various ways as well, although perhaps not to everyone's satisfaction. The problem there is that it is there are a number of different issues with each having their own scope and history of jurisprudence. Not everyone likes where things have ended up even if it is legal. There is potential for more conflict over that since Congress doesn't have the authority to override a Constitutional power of the President. And then there is the holding of the Supreme Court that phone records are ordinary business records. Lots of people don't like that. We'll see how it goes.
The rest of the matter has been investigations and prosecution as the result of abuse and criminal behavior by by some people associated with the DOD IG and possibly the Department of Justice. There will probably be at least a couple of people high up in the DoD and maybe DoJ that will go to jail over the retaliation and misconduct.
It looks like the system was pretty much working until some people high up in the system broke the rules, and now they will probably go to jail, as they should.
If we are going to put rulers on the money, we are no better than those we fought to get away from, where the money is propaganda for the ruling class.
If you have any idea as to why the Colonists fought the Revolution it doesn't seem to inform your position. The Revolution didn't have anything to do with who was on the money. "Ruling class"? Who do you think that is? It must be a pretty broad group if it includes Abraham Lincoln or the sons of nearly penniless immigrants like Ted Cruz.
Clearly you feel very threatened by someone not conforming to your views of sexuality, but that's really too bad.
Clearly you feel angst from people not conforming to your views of sexuality, but that's really too bad.
Just like racists half a century ago, you're just going to have to get with the times or become a member of an increasingly marginalized and impotent group of malcontents.
You know that sex selection abortion is common in various parts of the world now, right? How do you feel about that? Why shouldn't they be able to do that if abortion is legal? In 10-15 years, maybe sooner, advances in genetics will probably result in two things: sexual orientation selection abortions (in traditional cultures why have a son that won't have a family?) and genetic therapy combined with advanced brain treatments to transition someone from homosexual or with gender identity disorder to normal heterosexual. Will you oppose that? Why? You back sex reassignment so why not any of this? Is it some bigoted attachment to particular outcomes based on particular political values and social norms? What if homosexuality shrinks from 1.5% to .01% or .001% and transgenderism likewise shrinks?
The mainstreaming of homosexuality is already resulting in the loss of many icons of traditional gay culture in San Francisco and other places. If homosexuality decreases in frequency they could disappear quickly. Will you fight that like the deaf people fighting to preserve the unique deaf culture?
Will you adapt or become part of an increasingly marginalized and impotent group of malcontents?
And really, how does any of this harm you?
Issues of this sort impact the future since the choices society makes help determine if people have children, what the children are taught, how they behave, and what path society takes. Look at the pathetic behavior of the young "adults" on college campuses today. Do you provide your new hires the trigger warnings, safe spaces, and protection from "microaggressions" that they have become accustomed to in college? (I'll bet not.) Look at Europe, they don't want to have children - too expensive / gets in the way of fun / career is the priority. The native population of Europe is currently entering an unprecedented demographic free fall while importing large numbers of foreign peoples that are hostile to their values. That will probably not end well. We are getting a taste of it now. How do you think it will be in 80 years when the native population has shriveled, is aged and in nursing homes? The new arrivals will take care of them, and eventually the homosexuals and transgendered in their own way.
See one problem is the law says gender AT BIRTH. Which means it doesn't matter if you've had the surgery.
False.
North Carolina transgender law: Is it discriminatory?
Stam: "In North Carolina, you can have your birth certificate changed if you do reassignment surgery. It has been reported several places that we said it's your sex as designated at birth (that government agencies will use to define who can use bathrooms or changing facilities). And that is not correct. ... It's not what you are at birth. It's based on your birth certificate, which can be changed."
--------
If people obey this law, it's going to massively RAISE the number of people who don't look like they belong in the restroom they're in.
That would only be true if there were "massive" numbers of "trans" people, which there isn't. Even homosexual only comprise about 1.5% of the population and they are more common.