America as we have understood it finds itself at a crossroads. While the average citizen has collapsed inward, focusing on their own personal lives, a socialist movement has slowly gained steam and is now a full blown revolution. This socialist revolution has been going on since the early 1970’s, if not longer. Political correctness has been imbedded into our minds through well planned media messages and political speeches. All one has to do is turn on the TV and watch just about any show from the major networks from the past 40 years. Remember “All in the Family”, the sitcom that moved bigotry into the realm of no longer politically correct? Watch commercials from all eras. It is about political correctness.

We all know that we are shaped by what we are exposed to. What you see on TV has a huge impact on your view of the world. TV in the modern age takes away your individual free thinking and replaces it with socialist agenda driven political correctness and a subconscious acceptance of oppression. All you have to do to see it is to be aware and look for it to occur!

I believe that people should  be free to live as they choose. I don’t care about another person’s skin color, religious following, sexual orientation, or any other lifestyle choice that is different from mine, as long as it is not forced upon me. I also believe I should be free to choose how I view and accept (or not accept) those who are different than I. But the liberal media doesn’t want you or I to make those decisions, they want us to accept what they deem as acceptable. They want us to accept the socialist ideologies of political correctness and social justice.

I have news for the Liberal/Progressive socialist revolutionaries: Your game is exposed.  You are being led down the road of ruin by the Global Elites (known now as the Predator Class).  The remaining Americans who still value freedom and liberty above all are waking up to your lies and tactics. We can accept people for who they are, without your help, or your social justice bullshit.


Over the last four decades (that’s all I can remember!), the media has used commercials and TV shows to empower minorities and increase their acceptance in American society. It began in the 1970’s by bringing Blacks into our homes via the TV. Through commercials, programming, movies, and news, they put forth an effort to gain acceptance for the minority black population in America. They also pressed women’s rights and equality in the same manner. Over time this increased in scope and manner. But it was only practice, a test if you will. The goal was to see how well this system of mind alteration can work. It worked fantastically, as equality boomed for Blacks and women in the ’80s and ’90s.  The positive impact of this cannot be overstated.

Then we got to the 1990’s. The Liberal/Progressive movement continued their socialist agenda. They began to attack religion. They demanded we take it out of our schools, out of our government buildings, and out of our holidays. All in the name of political correctness. Happy Holidays became their demand. Most Americans didn’t understand what was happening, because it was only another test.

In the new Millineum, we were introduced the homosexual lifestyle on our TVs. We saw the emergence of new hate crime laws, as if getting beaten for one reason was somehow more damaging than getting beaten for another reason. We saw the introduction of homosexual characters on regular programming, entire shows featuring homosexuals like “Queer Eye For the Straight Guy”, celebrities coming out of the closet. All of this made public and celebrated in order to condition the people to accept this alternative lifestyle. The legal fights over gay marriage and the protests that followed, gay sex acts in the open streets of San Fransisco and it went on and on. Just another test!!!!

All of this led to where we are now. The Liberal/Progressive tactics have been proven a complete success. For the past forty years, it’s been about acceptance. Things have changed. Since about the mid 2000’s, they changed their tactics from acceptance to destruction. If their methods worked so well for so long, they have to work again! If you turn the TV on today, what you will see, if you haven’t already noticed, is a total attack on freedom and liberty loving people. This is not a test anymore, this is as real as you are alive. The Liberal/Progressives are actively using the very same media that they used to gain acceptance of women, minorities, homosexuals and the removal of religion from our lives to get us to accept their socialist ideology.  It’s easy to see the positive results of social engineering , then it veered from positive change, to negative change.

If you watch NCIS, how many times has Gibbs threatened a suspect with sending him/her to Gitmo, no lawyer, nothing? How many Latinos are showing up on commercials lately? How many movies are based on global warming? Forget the MSM, they are as blatant as can be, not even hiding it anymore. That’s how confident they are that this will work. Now, Libertarians, Conservatives and like-minded liberty loving Americans are being blatantly chastised as un-American, Racist, Bible thumping redneck gun lovers who only care about themselves and protecting the wealthy. What Bullshit!

Don’t let them reach their goal! Fight back against the Liberal/Progressive socialist agenda by standing up and calling them out on their lies.   You can no longer be passive in life, or you will soon be living in a socialist society. Freedom loving Americans have got to unite and say NO! to socialism. We can do it peacefully now, or do it with our guns later. Which would you prefer?

Since I have been declared by the Liberal/Progressives as a UnAmerican, Racist, Bible thumping gun lover, I reckon I’m just not politically correct. So my non-politically correct response to them, from this freedom loving American, is simple…Screw Socialism!

Your game is over!

Live Free!


Disclaimer: This article is by no means a personal attack on any individual. It is an attack on an ideology and the use of social engineering to achieve the goals of the Liberal/Progressive Agenda.


  1. Gman…not to steal a thread here….but you have mentioned the liberty and decision making………

    How about the Canadian mandated Health Care System having a death panel to decide that it is time to remove a breathing tube for a baby thatwill die without it. The parents want to go to Michigan with their child or take it home to die a natural death and accordning to the Canadian Government, they are in a better position to make these types of decisions than the parents and REFUSE tolet this child go. This in Ontario Canada….sorta like you are mentioning about over time what becomes accepted. Good old Government Health Care but there are NO death panels……lol……riiiight.

    This was on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC this morning.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Haven’t read anything about this as of yet, but a few random initial thoughts.

      1) This is happening in Canada under the Canadian health care system and Canadian laws and regulations. Do you know of any such instance in the United States?

      2) “for a baby that will die without it”. This seems like an absolute. Again, having no other knowledge of this story, I would need more information. But it seems to me that the treating physician, and possibly a board of the hospital, have determined that, medically, the baby has a 0% chance of survival. Assuming this is the case, yes, the parents need to let the baby go. That being said, there is no reason I can think of why the parents should not be able to bring their child to the US for further treatment or home to die. Unless there is more to the story than we know.

      3) This is a single incident occurring in another country. This has nothing to do with the issue of ‘death panels’ in the US under Obamacare.

      4) It is too cold here and I need a cup of joe!


      Gman, gotta give your post a bit more thought before I comment (and hopefully today finds more free time than yesterday!)…

      • Buck I know you had to have sensed this coming…

        Buck Stated:”3) This is a single incident occurring in another country. This has nothing to do with the issue of ‘death panels’ in the US under Obamacare.”

        TC: Good-googly-oogly man! An example of a deathpanel at work from a very similiar social healthcare system bears no signifigance to the viewpoint of right/wrong? The legality of such a governmental stance doesn’t give you the heebie-jeebies?

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Not quite sure how similar Obamacare is to the Canadian model. Perhaps DCU can give us some more information.

          But let’s not take the huge leap from a single incident in another country under another system to a commonplace occurrence in our own country.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Take your time, it’s 2 degrees outside right now, not in any hurry to leave!

      • Good Morning, counselor. To answer your questions: This has nothing to do with Obamacare at all. It has everything to to with the decision of a group of doctors and administrators that, and I am quoting, ” Physicians and administrators are in a better position to make these type of decisions than the parents. It is in the child’s best interest to be taken of the breathing tube and to die naturally in the HOSPITAL. We see no justification to let the child go to Michigan or home with the parents.” words to that effect were said on the news interview this morning. Here is the ONLY point that I wish to make. It is NOT a physicians decision to make and it is NOT a decision for a “panel” or board to make. It is a decision for the parents ONLY…..ONLY. Not a priest not a doctor not a board…the parents. The parents should be given the right to go to Michigan if they choose or take the child home, then remove the tube and let the child die at home in their arms as requested. So goes the world….so goes Obama and that is my opinion.

        Question 2…..I think I answered that in one.

        Question or statement three……You are a progressive party are you not…..I see this as being a progression once Obamacare is in place.

        Next point that I would like to make…… If the parents decide to take the child home and pay for it themselves….ACCORDING to the interview that I saw……that is not an option. The hospital is not letting go….unless things change…..this is a travesty of greater proportion than anything I have seen. I have not found references to it anywhere yet but, admittedly, I am not looking right now. It is possible that I misunderstood something but I do not think so.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          I agree to an extent — given the facts as cited here, if the parents choose to remove their child from the hospital and go elsewhere (either for furtive care or to die in peace at home), that should be their free choice so long as they are willing to pay for the costs associated with same.

          • You and I are not too far apart, sir….the only place you and I disagree on actually is universal health care. You are for it and I am against it. I am on it to an extent and have more experience than you, most likely., as to universal care and the problems associated with that…which is why I purchase supplemental insurance.

            I have no problems with financial viability decisions being made at all….by hospitals or by insurance companies. Mandated care is what I am against….and being made to pay for it.

            • Not to mention a stupid doctor or hospital trying to tell me that they know what is best for the child.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              What are your thoughts on a similar system — univeral care, with the option to purchase supplemental insurance?

              • Ok, you are getting closer to choices… sure your computer isn’t blowing a gasket, or diode, or whatever they have…?

                I still do not agree with mandated Health Care at all. I do not agree with the all for one and one for all mentality…as you know…however.

                Let me extrapolate here……are you suggesting mandated insurance> Inquiring minds want to know to have a better answer for you.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                I’m talking about univeral care afforded to all; not an individual mandate to purchase private insurance.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Don’t think I blew any gaskets or anything – haven’t told you where I stand on this. I await your opinion good sir!

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        “1) This is happening in Canada under the Canadian health care system and Canadian laws and regulations. Do you know of any such instance in the United States?”

        Maybe not yet, but it sure looks like we are headed in that direction!

    • D13 just a question, what would an insurance company do in this situation in the states? Would they pay out to keep a baby that has no hope of recovery and is in a vegetative state on a ventilator, against all medical advice?

      The US health system has death panels, except they are called board meetings and the guys making the decisions wear nicer suits and drive better cars, to think otherwise would be disingenuous.

      • Bob,

        Usually in the US, hospital and doctors treat the patient, then work out how to pay for treatment. That said, their billing dept’s employ human/raptor crossbreeds.

        Read more:

        The parents now are trying to move their son to a Detroit hospital. The Children’s Hospital of Michigan agreed to look at Joseph’s lengthy medical record and determine whether he’s a candidate for transfer.

        Moe Maraachli, appearing Tuesday on “America Live with Megyn Kelly,” criticized his son’s treatment at the Canadian hospital, comparing it to a jail. He went on to say that he would not consent to taking Joseph off the ventilator under the court’s recent ruling.

        “He’s a human,” he said. “He has a right to fight.”

        Laurie Gould, a spokesperson for London Health Sciences Centre, told CBC News that no official request has been received from Michigan for a transfer and that that the hospital would await further direction from the Public Guardian, a Canadian office that defends those who cannot defend themselves.

        That office could rule as soon as Tuesday whether Joseph must be taken off the ventilator immediately.

        • So a US hospital would happily absorb the $1500 a day costs for a child that is brain dead indefinitely? There is no rainbow at the end of this road, he isn’t going to get better, as soon as the medical team said he was brain dead the insurance company would stop payment as soon as possible. After that it would be up to the generosity of the hospital and how deep the pockets of the family were.

        • Thank you for the link….I just heard it on TV…….I was pretty close…but close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades and Nuclear devices

      • There is one major difference my friend (England or Canada, I can;t remember)… the decision is made to not pay….I am not debating that because iI simply hate the thought of National Health insurance….but….if an insurance company decides not to pay for a procedure, the patient is not kept against their will, the parents are not denied release from the hospital, and alternative care can be a choice. If I saw this correctly, none of these things are happening.

        It is amazing the spin that gets put on this….an insurance board makes monetary decisions and I have no problem with this at all.,…..go somewhere else. Forced coverage makes me see red quicker than anything…and National Health Insurance will never get my support. I am under the VA heath now and it sucks….I buy my own supplemental policy and go elsewhere.

        If the parents want their child….give it to them. If the decision by the doctors that it is cost prohibitive, then tell the parents and let them make a decision. This is total crap.

        time for my Dr Pepper.

        • I agree they should be allowed to take the child home for him to die, the whole !!!!!!!!!!DEATH PANELSSSSS!!!!!! thing though, you sounded in your post that you were complaining about them removing the ventilator.

          • Yes, I am complaining about them making these decision without the parent being given the choice. That is my only complaint….how do you justify your apparent position that the child is medically dead so go ahead an kill him.

            • Again this decision would be made in the US as well, although its not nice to talk about, insurance companies have an entry that tells them how much a child is worth. Unless the parents had unlimited funds (they don’t) the ventilator would be switched off with their consent or not. The child has racked up $200,000 CDN dollars since he has been in hospital, what would that cost in the States?
              Out of the two countries the outcome is the same, a dead child, the only difference is they dont have to declare bankruptcy in one of them.
              Oh I am English btw although I have spent quite a bit of time in Canada and the States.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                A good point that is too often ignored…

              • Again..please guys, you are missing the point. This child will not live. There is a financial decision and a logistical decision that needs to be made. I agree with that. The decision to turn off life support is a decision that needs to be made WITH THE PARENTS PRESENT to discuss options. Bob, you seem to want to protect the parents financial viability…that is not your place. If they choose to go broke trying…that is THEIR place…not a panel(I will eliminate the word death so you will not have a coronary). NO DOCTOR KNOWS BEST WHAT IS MORALLY RIGHT FOR ANY CHILD. (Caps for emphasis only…not yelling). What if St Judes Hospital in Memphis suddenly decides that want to take this child on……the parents and hospital should have that right regardless of cost…..not some panel junkie that says…”We know what is best for your child.”

                As I said before, I understand cost and I understand logistics……but the the choice of the child’s future is not a Dr nor a Hospital.

              • “Out of the two countries the outcome is the same, a dead child, the only difference is they dont have to declare bankruptcy in one of them.”

                Because the government or hospital has to cover the cost in the country that the person doesn’t declare bankruptcy. So in the interests of cost savings for patients that have a chance panels of doctors decide where to spend the money.

                I told my wife if something ever happens to me and I am a vegetable and have no hope of recovery, to not go into horrible debt because of me. She didn’t like that if you were wondering how that discussion went afterwards.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Funny…I named the Mrs. on my Living Will BECAUSE she would have no problem pulling the plug!


              • Hi Nate….I went further.. I have it in writing with specific instructions as to what was an emergency situation. The reason is to keep the hospitals and doctors from keeping me alive if we have deep pockets….it is about money.

              • “Bob, you seem to want to protect the parents financial viability”

                They can do what they like, no arguments from me. If they want to go to the states and declare bankruptcy, watch the doctors pull the plug, which will make the hospital raise its prices which in turn causes *your* insurance premiums to go up to cover the lost money that the hospital took a hit on, then all the power to them.

              • D13 said:
                “but the the choice of the child’s future is not a Dr nor a Hospital.”

                Correct, except at the point where the money runs out…….

              • When the hospital or government backed hospital or insurance company decides that they will not pay for further care it is a tragedy. But when it comes to the point where these entities decide they have a right to decide that no other kind of treatment is acceptable to them and you cannot choose to do something else even when they are not being ask to pay for it -is something all together different.

      • Sorry Bob…but just saw that you asked me a question. There are charity hospitals that do just that and it is usually worked out…but the parent has a right to decide on their brain dead child…..If they wish to bring him home….then bring him home. If they wish to go broke…they have that choice.

        • Charity hospitals have limited funds, they would eventually have to make a choice about keeping a brain dead child’s tissue oxygenated and body nourished or paying for a baby’s heart operation, off goes the ventilator. Heartless as it sounds every health system in the world has some form of rationing and some form of death panel whether we like it or not.

          • Understand, sir…understand thoroughly. But it is a choice for the parent to make. If the hospital says we unplug in three hours, the parents have a right to their child. Not a panel saying we know what is right…..that will get them a gun in the dace in Texas…at least from me.

            I have this choice to face soon with parents in their nineties and losing it…memory, the ability to see, etc. We have codiciles in place to prevent hospitals and doctors from making choices of keeping people ON life support when they do not want it. It is a choice. My only point….choices.

            • What choice? You can jump up and down and say that you want the ventilator kept on forever, the hospital will pull the plug anyway, unless you have the cash to keep it on. I am not understanding your choice thing here, the choice is down to the people paying the money to the people providing the service. I dont think there is a problem with the going to a hospital in the US, being that they a refugees from Lebanon I dont know how they would pay for it but that would be there problem.

    • Additional information-seems to be a disagreement over whether the baby is brain dead and they are saying the child could breath on his own with a tracheotomy.

    • DisposableCarbonUnit says:

      To all,

      the Canadian Health Care System is both fairly criticized and unfairly criticized.
      The decisions that were made are horrible and tragic.
      The doctors and hospital made a decision that no further treatment could save this child. Their only option is to remove the ventilator tube and let nature take its course. the parents option is to fight this decision. They are free to pay out of pocket if they wish to prolong the palliative treatment; they will not though.
      Would you be willing to pay, with your taxes, to keep this child in a vegetative state for life?

      I have had to make these decisions myself. The Canadian System just doesn’t pull the plug. Their is a substantial process that is gone through with many consultations with the parents. Time, a lot of it, is given for the parents to accept end of life decisions with children. Some cannot accept this. Only then is a non-voluntary process initiated and the courts MUST be involved.

      This is a very rare and tragic circumstance. Even in the US insurance companies may refuse to pay for further treatment; the parents are always free to pay out of pocket themselves.

      In Canada, because of the universal healthcare, we breed a population of dependent whiners who feel entitled to the entire expenditure of health care on their one and only case. That does not make ANY economic sense no matter what end of the political spectrum you are on.

      The news only ever reports the negative decisions and outcomes that happen rarely. The Canadian health care system DOES work, if you work with it. The Canadian Health Care system does not work if you are an uneducated, fat lazy slob who feels the country should beat a path to your door so you don’t have to leave your lazyboy chair or put down your beer or put out your smoke.

      I cannot compare it to the US system, the only system I know is the Canadian one and I can tell you from actual experience…it works and it works fast and does so without bankrupting the individuals.

      What the US dedicates in taxes to defense, Canada dedicates to health care…a substantial portion. Canada would go bankrupt having to build a defense force like that of the US.

      Don’t believe everything you read about the Canadian Health Care System, it has its problems, but so does every other system.

      There are decisions that have to be made in every health care system that always boil down to the economic. The freedom enjoyed in North America means you are always free to pay it yourself if you wish.

      As for not allowing the baby to die at home, there is more here than the media lets on. If it is believed that the parents are making a decision that will cause SERIOUS PAIN AND/OR SUFFERING to a minor child then, yes, someone will try to advocate on the part of the child.

      In this situation maybe the doctors overstepped their bounds, I don’t really know and neither do you. Believe me on this, when your child is in a situation such as this you, as a parent, WILL make irrational decisions. I know, I’ve been there.

      I can sympathize with the parents and I feel for them, no one should ever be put in this situation.

      This happens everyday in the US as well it just doesn’t make the media until someone wants to make a bogeyman out of the insurance industry.

      I’ll try to answer specific questions if you have them.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        So based on your knowledge, the parents are unwilling to pay the cost associated with keeping their child on the ventilator and/or transferring their child to another hospital?

        That sure puts a wrinkle in things! Thanks for the info on what’s actually going on here.

        • DisposableCarbonUnit says:

          Who can afford $1500-$1800 per day out of pocket expenses?

          • Buck the Wala says:


            My issue here is that it is being made to seem that the parents ARE willing to absorb these costs and yet the hospital is still denying treatment/transportation options. But given what you wrote that is certainly not the case.

            Why should the hospital and taxpayers be required to absorb these costs? Answer: they shouldn’t.

            • DisposableCarbonUnit says:


              The hospitals are guardians of public funds to be used to treat everyone…they have to make decisions.

              Doctors are fully responsible for their patients and they may prescribe whatever treatment they deem medically necessary until ALL OPTIONS run out. Then they have to make decisions.

              In Canada, the government makes VERY FEW decisions regarding health care…unless the doctors are trying to transplant a new cybernetic heart into a 90 year old obese smoker with liver cancer…they they pipe up and say ” C’mon, really?!”

          • Pt’s on ventilators need MUCH more than 1500-1800 bucks a day to pay for costs. I don’t know what the cost would be in Canada (imagine it would be cheaper), but here in the US, it costs thousands of dollars per day for the nursing, respiratory, intensivist care that is required for ventilator pts. There’s the cost issue again.

            Additionally, for them to take him home, he apparently needs a tracheostomy which are not easy to manage, cost money, and will be painful for the child if he’s not brain dead. Again the cost issue. Agree w/ above that I’m not sure if pt is actually brain dead or in a vegetative state. If brain dead, he won’t be able to breathe even w/ a trach. If in a vegetative state, he may be able to breathe on his own.

            Interesting ethical dilemma. As a doctor, I’m faced w/ end of life decisions fairly frequently. This one is a tough one.

      • I still have my OHIP card somewhere.

      • Hmmmmm….ok….if the parents are refusing to pay, which is not what the news media said, then I can aome down on the side of the hospital. My only argument is that the parents were willing to pay the transfer and for the trac….if that is not the case and the Canadian system calls for the decisions as you stated…as Buck said….that does indeed put a new wrinkle in this case.

  2. Spot on G-Man. I agree 100%.
    I get 90% of my news through the internet.I watch the mainstream media just to get a feel for the purpose at which they are pushing.
    I “unplugged” from the propoganda driven media TV machine about 5 years ago.It makes it so easy to identify the brainwashed that have forgotten how to think for themselves.Instead of watching an evening of TV I would suggest inviting some friends over and discussing world events, philosophy and doing ones own research into topics rather than relying on a biased propoganda with hidden purpose.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Good Morning TC!

      It’s all easy to see, when one knows what to look for. I prefer music over TV, but mostly prefer to be outdoors, where the show is much better. 🙂

      • Good morning to you sir!
        It’s my bed time now as I am work nights this week. I pulled a 14 hour shift last night so A buddy of mine could take his kids to school.His wife just had a Hysterectomy and she can’t drive yet.His daughters a cheerleader in highschool and for some reason thinks riding the big yellow bus is some form of a social stigmata so he is bringing the kids to school for a few days. G’nite, cyas all on later.

    • And one other thing…Political Correctness is nothing but Cultural Marxism.

  3. TV in the modern age takes away your individual free thinking and replaces it with socialist agenda driven political correctness and a subconscious acceptance of oppression.

    Oy, vey, could we get a little more paranoid here?

    We can accept people for who they are, without your help, or your social justice bullshit.

    We must’ve touched a raw nerve …

    It began in the 1970′s by bringing Blacks into our homes via the TV. Through commercials, programming, movies, and news, they put forth an effort to gain acceptance for the minority black population in America. They also pressed women’s rights and equality in the same manner.

    Imagine, the nerve of people, accepting black and women in the same era!

    In the new Millineum, we were introduced the homosexual lifestyle on our TVs. We saw the emergence of new hate crime laws, as if getting beaten for one reason was somehow more damaging than getting beaten for another reason.

    Yes, yes, yes! There are Queers amongst us! Kill them. Kill them all … or the socialists will take over?

    Gman, until now I thought you a bit misguided … now I’m questioning your sanity.

    All of this led to where we are now.

    Now wait a minute, I thought this was stand up for America, not knock it down. What’s wrong with where we are now socially (except for that fact you appear to want to return to the dark ages)?

    If you turn the TV on today, what you will see, if you haven’t already noticed, is a total attack on freedom and liberty loving people.

    Only, me thinks, if you’re completely bat-shit paranoid.

    Freedom loving Americans have got to unite and say NO! to socialism. We can do it peacefully now, or do it with our guns later. Which would you prefer?

    And we say, workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains … that, plus the other side has clearly lost its mind …

    Disclaimer: This article is by no means a personal attack on any individual. It is an attack on an ideology and the use of social engineering to achieve the goals of the Liberal/Progressive Agenda.

    Fair enough … we say the same thing. Not a personal attack on G-Man (or any other of you crazy righties … just the incredibly paranoid and fascistic philosophy “some of you” seem to follow).

    Anita, don’t be angry with me … Doc still comes to your rescue.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Ah, Yes! How quickly the message is lost in favor of attacking the messenger. That’s cool, just thought you could do better on the matter of how the media DOES affect the masses. Possibly “too deep”?

      • The message, quite frankly, is insane … that deep enough for you?

        Come on Gman … this is just silly.

        • The message is that media is used to manipulate people. The fact that it can be a good thing, like driving acceptance, is not relevant to the message.

          You missed the point bud, and read paranoia into a parts of what was written that was not there.

          • Ah, bud … explain how this one can be used as a good thing:

            Freedom loving Americans have got to unite and say NO! to socialism. We can do it peacefully now, or do it with our guns later. Which would you prefer?

            That’s about as bat-shit as it gets … Bud.

    • Not angry Charlie. I agree with a lot of what you said. I don’t see a problem with how the media went to bat for the different groups that G listed. But that’s where it should stop. Now everyone is equal. Now it’s up to us to keep the govt boxed in instead of them boxing us in. And its up to us to block out the media’s attempts at leading us to an anything goes social experiment. I think that’s what G is trying to get at. You can’t deny that part Charlie. Progressivism has no end zone it just keeps going….to what? To the other side of Sodom and Gamorrah? 🙂 That’s the scary part.

      I always try to live by the Jiminy Cricket philosophy of let your conscience be your guide. Works for me!

      • I don’t agree with much of the influence the media has but that (I think) has more to do with us (how we let it influence us). It can also be said (or argued) that the media reflects society as much as influences it (i.e., give them what they want). Now, that probably is progressive (people are more accepting of one another these days because it probably makes sense (to enough to influence the media) to do so.
        The call to arms is a bit much. Yeah, we can argue that freedom includes the right to shoot those we don’t agree with, but then that’s not a very good argument for freedom (to most people–thank god). I have no idea where it ends and I certainly am not a fan of everything that has changed over time; I don’t like it that kids are genuinely rude little shits on the subways, etc. when back in the day we wouldn’t consider it (for fear of getting backhanded by some adult) but … there’s no stopping some changes (certainly not with guns). How rudeness equates to socialism is a tough one for me to swallow (I suspect the rude kids’ parents probably should’ve intervened somewhere along the line).

        • Yep. The rude kid’s parents…that’s where it got going! I’m close to 50 (yikes)..I’d like to slap my friends sometimes for not keeping their kids in check better. We all have kids in their early 20’s. We’re the generation that had to start with both parents working leaving the kids to watch MTV for 10 hrs a day. That was off limits for my daughter. She turned out fine but alot of her friends didnt and she realizes that already. Now I just hope that my generation can show our grandkids a standard that’s not quite so “out there” . I think the only way to do that is to shut all the toys down and get back to some real personal family togetherness. Get involved as a whole family like it used to be back in the day. Time is the biggest problem.

  4. G!,

    You had me with your title. I have been watching the “reporting” of the Wisconsin protests without surprise. The media outrage over TeaParty hate is excused when it’s union thugs waving around Hitler & cross-hairs.

    And you are correct the effect TV can have, and they seem to push issues with their programing. We were watching ABC Family when a promo came on for a movie they were about to show, forgot the name, but it was one of those
    romantic type, with most of the humor sexual. It’s not what my eight yr. old needs to watch, and that’s why we were on their “family” channel.

  5. Crap-I’m taking my son’s dog to be fixed this morning -Probably being silly but I feel horrible. But he is out of control-he thinks he has to mark everything as his territory and it has gotten completely out of hand. Nothing has worked to get him to stop. the vet says this is the best thing to do. Hope he’s right.

  6. Nice Article G. The disclaimer was a nice touch too, lol.

    It is amazing how much TV has driven the culture to change. Some of it I don’t have a problem with. Most of it I do. Acceptance is one thing, but manipulating the culture to the level that they do and over-emphasizing aspects to make them seem normal is definitely frustrating. Also, the mere repetition of some things, like global warming stuff, has made it such a part of pop culture that most people never question it.

    Mind-numbed people are dangerous, especially on voting day.

  7. and over-emphasizing aspects to make them seem normal is definitely frustrating

    I guess that depends on what your definition of “normal” is …

    You know, America remains a free society and you really don’t have to watch television. I, for instance, refuse to watch television outside of an occasional cable show (so my progressiveness didn’t come from some dopey sitcom). You guys really are paranoid …

    • I don’t watch television much anymore either Charlie. What I am talking about as “normal” are things like the materialism you see in shows that do not match the rank and file person. The lifestyles do not either. I suppose in Hollywood it might be close, not sure, never been there. Even the concepts of global warming are put out there so much that it drives normalcy, rather than being derived from it.

      And I doubt that anyone here thinks that anyone else on SUFA got their philosophy from a sitcom. The people here are too smart and well informed for easy manipulation. You are no exception to that Charlie.

      • Gman seems to be the one suggesting our society is being manipulated by sitcoms, brother (and you seem to agree at some points). I reiterate, don’t watch it. Read books (not mine, they are mindnumbingly silly) … read anything else (even Ayn Rand (excuse me while i barf)) but don’t try and paint the media as driving socialism … you look absurd doing so. Realize that networks are capitalistic ventures (for God’s sake) and paying Will Ferell $20 million to do a sophmoric moronic comedy is not the act of socialists … think about it!

  8. FDA Considers Over the Counter Status for “Morning After” Pill for Girls Under 17

    Read more:

    I posted earlier and it seems locked up in moderation, or USW & G! Man have banned me?

    Is the FDA going to decide an 11 yr old can take an abortion pill without her parents knowledge? If I had a daughter, I might want to know who she had been with, help her make good choices, protect her from pedofiles…

    • You can’t. That is a government role. How dare you suggest that sort of thing….personal choice. Sheesh…….what rock you been under?

    • LOI- I saw that yesterday as well. Being as I saw the story on Fox, I kinda figured where their line of thinking was going, so I didn’t waste anymore time watching!

      Personally, while I don’t necessarily agree with the drug, it doesn’t affect my life choices, or anyone else’s who doesn’t take the pill. Therefore, under libertarian thinking, it’s something that should be allowed(anyone getting the pill).

      While I can see and understand a typical conservative’s outrage about it being available to anyone, the fact remains that if they have raised their child correctly, this is not going to be an issue for them and their child, as the child will not be engaging in the type of behavior that would require this pill.

      I understand your view that if you had a daughter, you would want to know about this so you could help her with her decisions. That’s the sign of a good parent. To me, protesting the availability of the pill to anyone of any age, smacks of people being scared that they haven’t raised their daughter right, so therefore, since there’s a risk their daughter might get it without parental notification, they must take away everyone’s ability to have access to it! And they feel justified having this response because they can say it shows their “values”. Methinks that if parents were doing a better job of teaching “values” to their kids, this would be a non-issue!

      • Will see if this posts, and then add to it, or follow the multiple links there….

      • Howdy Matt…..agreed…a good parent would not be upset and it would not bother me. Like birth control pills that my daughter took when she was 13…..I went berserk… Even NORAD thought there had been a nuclear explosion…the Air Defense command scrambled everything they had…..Russia went on alert… get the picture….

        After about an hour of calming down it was explained to me by my then significant other, that my daughter had huge problems with her monthly curse and that the pills were low strength designed to regulate and take away cramps and other discomforts……and I was reminded that we raised our daughter correctly and there would be no problems…there were not.

        NOw, you and I will take separate trails here. I am against providing medicines to minor children with out consent….any kind of medicine. And, unless I am mistaken, I do not think the libertarian viewpoint would suggest this….not the availability but the distribution to minors without parental consent….or am I wrong here?

        • I suppose- but this is always where it starts to get tricky. What is that line that should not be crossed as far as legislating morality? Or am I taking this way too far as to include drugs to underage kids in my not wanting to legislate morality?

          Did that last question make sense? I read it a couple more times- I think so!?

          • Matt…I think you go a little far using the term legislating morality to minors. A minor is a parents responsibility in birth control, sex, abortions….etc… When does a child become of age to make these decisions….isn’t that where the real question lies? I fall on the side that as a minor child under the guidance of a parent, parental rights trump.

            • I can agree with that.

              I guess when I first heard the story, my thought process immediately went to conservatives being so hung up about sex that they don’t even really want sex education in schools(I know, I know- think about the quality of teachers doing the teaching), that this would be a strictly moral reaction from conservatives. Thank you for explaining how I was pushing that too far!

        • DisposableCarbonUnit says:

          If they’re not having sex then the pills are just hormone control and not birth control.

      • I agree good parents should catch this sort of behavior, but what about bad parents? Those working two or three jobs?
        Those who trust others, not considering teachers and priest
        have been caught abusing their position. I’m not against the pill for any adult, and that might be how it would work.
        I am against it being given to a child, without parental consent.

        Shared Stories:
        It Keeps Us Safe
        I was raped at 11, by my 17 year old boyfriend. I chose not to tell my parents because I didn’t think their involvement would help, that was the right choice for me. Planned Parethood helped me deal with the aftermath of the rape allowing me to deal and cope as best as I could in my own way. I was 14 when I decided to start having sex, the day I made that choice I made an appointment to get birth control pills. I’m 17 now, I’ve been with my current boyfriend for about two years. During that time i’ve been HIV and STD tested four times. Right now I’m sitting in the waiting room while my boyfriend gets the results for his HIV test. We love each other so we’re responsible and Planned Parenthood helps us to do that.

      • Got nothing to do with broadcasting my “values” it’s got to do with my “right” to be involved with my children’s decisions until they are old enough to take care of themselves. And although raising your children well, means alot -they can still make stupid choices. Unless you believe every time a child messes up it means they have bad parents.

  9. Ray Hawkins says:

    G-Man – not really sure what your argument here is – I thought you were raising a critique that somehow TV has been used to further a Progressive/Socialist Agenda.

    If that is the case then these statements/paragraphs makes no sense:

    “Then we got to the 1990′s. The Liberal/Progressive movement continued their socialist agenda. They began to attack religion. They demanded we take it out of our schools, out of our government buildings, and out of our holidays. All in the name of political correctness. Happy Holidays became their demand. Most Americans didn’t understand what was happening, because it was only another test.”

    or this….

    “The legal fights over gay marriage and the protests that followed, gay sex acts in the open streets of San Fransisco and it went on and on. Just another test!!!!”

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      I guess I’d also offer that maybe the reason you’ve seen a change in some of the programming is that programmers were trying to reach a wider cross-section & demographic. I’d suppose not many blacks or latinos cared much for the Dukes of Hazzard or Blacksheep Squadron – maybe more of these folks would watch TV (and buy the products hocked during the shows) if they could more readily identify with the characters.

      TV doesn’t take away my individual thinking unless I allow it to.

      Before we nail the final nail in the coffin on TV – ask yourself if you can be just as manipulated by the radio…..or the Internet…..or books……or magazines…….or blogs

      • Or retired old Colonels who know nothing? How are you, sir….and the little tyke….last I heard he had total control of the household.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          Hey D13 – all is well in Fort Hawkins. Little man has been practicing on his Radio Flyer Horse (you know – the old school one with the heavy springs we all used to get the skin on our legs caught in). He plans on leading a cavalry including the two big dogs we have to overthrow Daddy and take over the Fort……

  10. So TV shows are supposed to be liberaly based. I guess thats why Firefly got cancled. I still have not forgiven you FOX.

    • Hear Hear!

    • I will never forgive them for that….

      • Ok I will bite..What is or was Firefly? Or should I ask.

        • Firefly was arguably one of the best Sci-Fi shows ever. Unfortunately FOX ordered only a half season worth of episodes and didnt even show all of them at which point it was cancled.
          The fan base was large enough and loud enough in their protest to get the Movie Serenity made ( no help from FOX). If you have not seen the show I would highly suggest it. It is a wonderful mix between the genres sci-fi and westerns.

      • missingtexas says:

        Found this the other day……

        Firefly premieres on Science Channel on March 6 at 8 p.m., with the two hour pilot, followed by the first episode at 10 p.m. Following that, Firefly episodes will air every Sunday…in order

  11. Gold is up
    Silver is up
    Gas is up
    Mid East tension is up
    USA tension is up

    What’s up?

  12. G Man….I do not watch the TV shows that you apparently do. I limit mine to the History Channel, National Geographic, Military History Channel, limited sports, and 30 minutes of news surfing in the morning and evening. I like to get the perspective from CNN, Fox, MSNBC, BBC….if you watch these four news show, one gets dizzy from all the spin on each one of them.

    I do not think you meant to convey that TV shows that feature various ethnic groups are brainwashing the masses. If you meant to say that, then I think that you are not correct. I think, and hope, you meant to imply that media, especially television, has a decidedly leftward progression and that inundation of this progression is wrong. Do I have that correct?

    I do not think you a bigot and would hope that you are not. But, I will agree with you that there are many shows out there that do forward an agenda of the left but, let’s face it, Leave it to Beaver, My three Sons, etc….also favored the conservative side and were popular in their days….So, I do not think you have intended to portray the bigotry line of thinking.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      My good Sir, I’m certainly not racist in any way. On occassions, I also watch the same channels as you, I like history, so when something looks interesting I’ll put it on. I really don’t watch TV much, and haven’t for years. That could be why I picked up on this, just watching a simple movie on the ScyFy channel.

      No, I do not believe the masses are being brainwashed. Manipulated is a better word. There were some great sitcoms many years ago, the Lucy show comes to mind, where they were just funny. Now, it seems that the writers are including the Progressive ideals, basically using TV as a means to manipulate it’s viewers.

  13. My thoughts on what is beign offered today…

    I understand the sentiment that G is trying to get across, at least I think that I do. I have a question or two but I will start with what I think are observations but could be little more than my errant interpretation.

    It appears that G has espoused that certain things are not acceptable on TV such as the gay lifestyle and equal treatment for blacks and women. I do not believe that this was his intention. I think the point was to show how persuasive the media can be, as evidenced by the impact those moves had on society.

    After seeing how impactful they CAN be, now we have to be wary of what they are preaching. I think it was Jon above who mentioned the idea of “excess” in programming. I think this may be somewhat pervasive in today’s programming. I think that the gay lifestyle, as an example, appears far more on sitcoms and movies than it does in real life. As a result it appears to give a false representation of how prevalent or accepted it is. I know that was difficult to understand my point because I had difficulty writing it. What I am meaning is that you are FAR more likely to encounter homosexuals on sitcom TV than you are in real life situations such as that (and remember that I have plenty of gay friends so I may actually be on the high side in terms of the number I encounter). It gives the appearance that the gay lifestyle is more common than it actually is.

    Another aspect of excess mentioned above is the decadence that is teaching our youth to crave material things and to embrace a complete lack of ethics in dealing with others. One need look no further than shows such as “The Hills”, the Kardashian show, “My Super Sweet 16”, and the like. The role models for young girls are Britney, Lindsay, Paris, and Hannah Montana, who all should NEVER be role models.

    I need more thought before I am willing to agree that our entertainment is leading us to the path of a loss of freedom. But I absolutely believe that in an effort to entertain, our media is negatively altering the ethics and morals of society.

    • USW, that is what I took from the article as well.

      Also about the roll models, there is some horrible stuff on tv right now being passed off as “reality” when reality is furthest from the truth.

    • But I absolutely believe that in an effort to entertain, our media is negatively altering the ethics and morals of society.

      My question then is: Is it the market forces at work (giving them what they want?) or a conspiracy?

      My first response was almost directed at you USW, but it just didn’t read write (the initial post) so I went back and checked (and was still surprised it was Gman) … it’s just too rigid to swallow. Remember how much money these networks are making shoveling some of this shit (I’m not a fan of tv in general but that has little to do with what they promote–whether by market forces or conspiracy). I’m very progressive so I don’t mind anything they put on so long as it has some value (quality, etc.) to it and I just don’t find it on television in general (why I watch netflix–mostly foreign and independent movies these days). Just remember that somebody is on the other end of those very aimed at advertisements and paying a lot of fazools for it too. That reeks more of a capitalistc conspiracy than some social agenda (to me).

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Agreed. Just dont’ see TV programming as evidence of those behind the scenes pushing a progressive/socialistic agenda on unsuspecting Americans who are too foolish to turn the TV off!

        If you don’t like what’s on, change the channel or turn off the TV.

        To add, to those that find there is something to this socialist conspiracy to change our very culture and society through TV programming, what would you propose be done?

        • Buck

          Much of it is clearly “agenda” driven. Can’t say it is “socialist” necessarily but clearly it is an agenda.

          Or are you going to tell me that the “public” was craving more TV shows featuring Gay characters?

          How about all the family shows that suddenly started discussing Santa Claus as a fictitious character, portraying parents as “liars”? That one started about 10 years ago in case you were wondering.

          The stuff GMan is pointing out was not created in response to some hidden market demand. It is simply silly to make such an argument.

          Now your other brain dead shows and entertainment, I can go along with the market solution. If it makes money one time then ride the horse hard until it collapses. That seems to be the media way.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            It is equally silly to label this some socialist-driven conspiracy. You don’t like the gay characters on the boob tube, turn off the tv! If no one watches, advertisers will pull their money and the show will be gone.

            And wait…Santa Claus isn’t real!??

            • Buck

              Kind of avoided the whole point didn’t you?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Not at all — I’m with Todd and Charlie on this. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its capitalism.

                The initial decision as to what shows to air and what characters to include is made based on polling and focus groups and advertising dollars. If people refuse to watch these ‘agenda-driven’ shows, trust me they will be pulled pretty quickly.

                The real reason the shows that ‘push’ an agenda (be it acceptance of blacks, women, or gays) were put on the air is because American society was moving in that exact direction at the time. Seeing these trends, shows were put together, shown to focus groups, and put on the air. People watched, ad revenue increased, and more shows of the same ‘agenda-driving’ nature came out. Not because of some sinister plot to turn this country into a socialist nation, but because that is what people wanted to watch!

              • Quack – Quack – Quack – Quack – Quack – Quack – Quack – Quack – Quack – Quack – Quack

                🙂 🙂

              • Buck

                So you are still saying that the viewing public was craving more shows with openly gay characters, right?

                According to you this tested very well in the focus groups and that is why the shows were aired. Right?

                Yet many of them failed, and yet they keep putting out new ones. But it is all just market research. Right?

              • Buck, on the one hand, I see your point and agree with it. Not all the TV stuff was a conspiracy, certainly not a political one. Too big, too much too corrdinate.

                As to the capitalism aspect, however, thinking that all of the shows are driven by polls and focus groups, that is absolutely incorrect. TV and Movies are art. Artists create what THEY want to see. Sure, producers get involved, and the artist makes a compromise to get the money to make their show, and some of that is driven by focus groups. But the main story is created by an artist, not manufactured in a lab based on popular vote.

                Some of the trend following shows are, indeed, manufactured, like a majority of the reality shows and a lot of really crappy sequels, but ultimately, the core is still a piece of art. When I had my video company, we sat around and came up with what we thought was a good story and a good message, we did not focus group it. We get feedback on what to change and improve, but the basis did not change.

                Shows are put out based on what the culture of hollywood likes, or based on what the creator is passionate about. Capitalism comes into play, but to say that the entertainment industry is driven by capitalism and profits is patently false. TV and movies are driven by artists and the art culture, which is NOT at all the majority of Americans. Even a simple look at the profit numbers for family movies and disney cartoons versus R-rated movies would show that money is not the primary force driving things. There are 10 times as many action/violent/gory/sexually explicit/horror type movies as there are family oriented ones, despite the greater success of the kid friendly stuff.

                I am not sure I agree that it was all a progressive consipracy, but it ain’t capitalism. Granted, the solution is to just not watch it, but that would be the solution to a lot of stuff.

      • Charlie,

        I think it is a bit of both. I don’t think that the programming is currently pushing a socialist agenda, though. I think that hollywood has a strong history of creating media that is meant to push an agenda or a political philosophy. There is a pretty good history of that. Remember the West Wing? Very much pushing a political ideology. But that was OK, it was a good show. I think that it begins with Hollywood types pushing a philosophy or what they want to put out there. If it works for whatever reason, it gets copied and is at that point market driven. But the initial change may not be market driven at all. For example, I saw an interview years ago with the people who did Ellen’s whole coming out episode. They had a clear agenda and wanted to start putting it out there. It worked, mostly because Ellen was really funny whether she was gay or straight. It set the tone and there was a lot of market driven gay characters after that. I don’t see it as a large conspiracy, but I also don’t believe that it is purely market driven either. So my answer is a bit of both. Does that work?

        • It makes more sense than a conspiracy, sure. I do agree, by the way, that as left/right tags go, the media (for the most part) and Hollywood in general has a left slant to it (not my idea of left, but what is considered the norm) so, yes, that definitely makes sense.

          See, I knew you didn’t write the original post (you’re much less rigid than Gman–although even he surprised me with this diatribe–the socialists are out to get him through sitcomes, etc.).

  14. I watch very little TV except for Sports and FoxNews. Oh yeah, I do like “What Not to Wear” – it’s all about the shoes!

    I stopped watching more from the sheer lack of talent than the messaging. These reality shows? Whose reality is that?
    I miss the days when humor was funny and not laden with crude comments and profanity; I miss variety shows with entertainers that could actually sing and didn’t have to grab their crotches or expose themselves to cover up for their lack of talent. Yeah, the good ‘ol days…..

  15. Yeah…….like gas wars and .18 per gallon ETHYL. Heh heh…some youngsters are probably googling Ethyl right now….I can feel the power.

    • Wait….i have to make sure I don’t have to go googling.. Ethyl.. That’s regular pull up to the pump and tell them $10 regular and they pump it for you regular, right? Like back in the 70’s right?

      • Nooo..goes further back than that. Sixties…..Ethyl was made for high performance engines. If you put regular in an engine that was designed for Ethyl, you would sound like a peddler on main street pushing his cart…..

        I had a 1967 Firebird 400 for my first car….it was a BABE mobile. Racing stripes, standard four speed with Henke clutch, overbore on the cylinders to 440…ran like a bat out of hell….I had the tickets to prove it….kept Fort Worth viable for a couple of years. I could beat everything on the road except…..and it still rankles me….I could not beat a Shelby GT 500…..son of a B….beat me everytime…

        Ok long story to a short answer….it was full leaded high performance gas……18 cents per gallon. At those prices 5 bucks fill a car up with change.

        • Geez you are one old colonel aren’t you.! Have a few friends with muscle cars still. They have to add lead ( or something) to their fuel now. Lowest gas price I can remember seeing on a pump is 43 cents 🙂

          • Ever hear of the Woodward Dream Cruise colonel? That is SHOWTIME around these parts. Started a few years back as just a one day thing now it’s a weeklong party on Woodward. One good reason to put the toy on a trailer and head to the Motor City.

          • This is Texas and we have refineries close by and gas wars were pretty popular inthe 60’s…..but I cannot beat .18 anywhere….and it did not stay there long. Average price for me until 69 was about 35 cents. Muscle cars were a cool thing back then…..with an 8 track tape…….cat’s meow.

        • I can remember as a kid my dad and the station attendant standing at the pumping smoking and talking while the tank was being filled! Ah yes, memories of the 60’s – some of which are not so good. 😉

    • Going at roughly $8.40 per gallon in the UK, yum.

  16. G-man … try some foreign flicks … maybe being “accepting” isn’t such a bad way to go (there’s also a bonus on Chris Christie for you …:)

  17. Good observation, Gman!

  18. Truthseeker says:

    I hate to hijack this a little but something is perplexing me.

    1) I see that the Dems and GOP are going back and forth about the possibility of the Government shutting down for a while. My question is, WHO CARES? This would save us a LOT of money which means we can borrow less.

    2) Why haven’t we cut off all foreign aide? Does it make sense that we are borrowing money and running high deficets and at the same time, giving money away to countries under the guise of “foreigh aide”?

    Just a few thoughts.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      1) The people dependent on receiving social security and other benefits, employees who would suddenly find themselves on a furlough, etc.

      2) Foreign aid is often given because it is deemed to help our domestic interests. Not saying this is the sole reason, nor the primary motive in most cases, but foreign aid does serve other purposes than just helping foreign causes.

      • Truthseeker says:

        1) So what. The Government was never supposed to provide those services in the first place. I even work for the Government and think it should stop what it is doing. This is what happens when there is unchecked spending. What do you do when you run out of money?

        2) That isn’t a good enough reason to keep doing it when you are running deficits and borrowing money. If you are all for us pulling out of these countries and mind our own buisness, then you should be for stopping the theft of our tax money being sent to causes that quite frankly we don’t care about.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          1) That’s another issue altogethre. But those people will most certainly care.

          2) Don’t see it as theft in the slightest. We’ve had this discussion ad nauseum. You personally may not care about these causes but others do and they do influence our own national interests.

          • Truthseeker says:

            For point number 2, can you please provide information that shows what our money is buying? For example, what has our 1 Billion dollars bought in Egypt? What about all the money we give to Saudia Arabia?

            Perhaps the new President that promised more Transparency would show us what our money is buying? If it is actually helping ALL Americans, then it may be justifiable.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              For one thing, our Billion Dollars in Egypt has bought some level of acceptance of Israel, at least at the government level. I’m sure it also assisted in keeping the Suez Canal open for business, though to be fair, that second one was pulled out of my ass. Maybe I need some more coffee to fuel through the afternoon.

  19. gmanfortruth says:

    OK, I’m back from a lengthy get-r-done trip with my father. What prompted me to write this article? Well, it was a slow cold Saturday and I was watching the tube with Pops. We were watching SCYFY channel, specifically two long movies, called Catagory 6 and catagory 7. Weather disaster movies, that can be somewhat entertaining. Both movies had tons of left leaning ideaology in them, to the point that I noticed it and wasn’t looking for it.

    It mademe think of my childhood years, and “All in the Family” was one of my favorite shows. I realized that it did affect me in my thinking on racism, that has carried forward to my present self. I don’t look at people who look different in a negative way.

    I proceeded through the decades, and tried my best to show that the media has had a substantial affect on the general populace regarding the issues I mentioned. The media and politicians still have a major affect on the populace, if anyone don’t see that, your not looking.

    The last couple decades, Progressivism has been on the rise, and the media has played a major roll in that, which continues today. I like NCIS for example, and will watch it my Pops evry now and then. The use of the Patriot Act and anti-terrorism laws, in a manner that makes them look good, is blatant and easy to see. I don’t see the Patriot Act as anything good. More to come!

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Charlie, I hope I’m not crazy, I just see things that appear in front of me. I’m open minded, which allows me to see more clearly than those stuck looking only at the inside of their life. I’m also anti-progressive, so I can blame them for everything 🙂

  20. G-Man,
    I think you have “Liberal/Progressive socialist agenda” mixed up with capitalism. TV/media only survive by drawing an audience to draw ad revenue. Quality shows get cancelled (or never considered) if they don’t draw an audience. They can’t put out enough “Reality” shows because people love them.

  21. Thanks, Todd … I’ve been trying to make that point but when I used the word capitalism here, the anit-communist/socialist crosses go up so fast (waring off evil), they don’t see Capitalism behind anything … the networks are giving them what they want (market forces) … which is garbage … which is what capitalism ultimtely leads to … garbagio

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Sorry Charlie (always wanted to say that!), Sure it’s capitalism, what show or movie will make the most profit. That has nothing to do with what is written into the show or movie. Wouldn’t it be natural for a far left leaning script writer to write based on his leanings? Same for one from the right. The media as a whole has had a huge impact in promoting equal rights in the past, why would you deny that they are now promoting things like global warming (a hoax), social justice and political correctness?

      • G-Man,
        Sure, everyone has a bias. But a left-leaning or right-lean writer or producer that only pushes his agenda will be out of work in a hurry.

        The media as a whole has had a huge impact in promoting equal rights in the past, why would you deny that they are now promoting things like global warming (a hoax), social justice and political correctness?

        You have no problem assuming it’s the Liberal/Progressive socialist agenda that the media is promoting, but you can’t fathom that maybe it’s capitalism giving the people what they want so the companies can make money?

        • gmanfortruth says:


          How are you today? Hope you and the family are warm and well! 🙂

          You said: But a left-leaning or right-lean writer or producer that only pushes his agenda will be out of work in a hurry.

          While that me be true, because of one word in your statement (only). However writers will always write to their political leanings, It’s natural to do so. One can’t erase their leanings when writing. However, I’m not saying that it happening on everything that’s on TV, but rather some shows and movies.

          On your last statement, sure it’s about money. That’s the purpose of the industry. I’m not assuming anything, I’ve seen it with my eyes and heard it with my ears. I’ve seen numerous movies based on the hoax known as glabal warming, that in itself is proof!

          • G- I watch enough TV to say that there is alot of shows that have political comments in them. It can be obvious like in every disaster sci fi movie I have watched in the last year blaming every disaster on global warming( I watched the two you mentioned and many more) to just dropping a conservative name as the butt of the joke. Most of the time it’s one or two comments out of a show-who’s gonna protest-I snarl in recognition of the slam and keep watching the show because I am already limited in good viewing and alot of the time it is still funny even if the joke is on me(so to speak). It used to be much more subtle. Now it seems more pronounced but maybe I just notice it more. I suspect we have this same type of thing done to libs. but from everything I have ever read-the entertainment industry is simply more liberal-so there isn’t any balance. So unless you are paying attention you just shrug these things off -but just how advertising works -this continued exposure to these little remarks stick in your mind.

          • G-Man,

            I’ve seen numerous movies based on the hoax known as glabal warming, that in itself is proof!

            Or maybe they were just “adventure” movies with a theme about something that’s currently in the news?

            What drives most TV – especially primetime network TV? That all important 19-39 year old male demographic.

            And what is it that they want to see??????????

            And that demographic is not exactly “liberal”….

        • Todd,

          Methinks sir that you have been watching too much Michael Moore…
          His mantra has wormed its way into your head through your eyes and ears and is now eating your brain…

    • You can’t blame capitalism for the sickness caused by a fascist system.

      Giving the public what they want can fit into both systems. But under ours, it is NOT Capitalism.

      • Oh please JAC, you don’t like the results, so it must be fascist, right??

        It’s CAPITALISM, whether you like it or not.

        • Todd

          WRONG Todd, as usual.

          We DO NOT live in a Capitalist economic system.

          Has nothing to do with what I like or dislike about the programs on TV, the content of movies or the crap sold as music.

          Reality is what it is.

        • *Yum* *Yum* *MUNCH* *MUNCH* munch munch munch munch…Michael Moore is eating your brain!

    • Hey Charlie,
      They just can’t accept the fact that CAPITALISM could produce a result that they don’t like. I mean come on, the world (at least not the good CAPITALIST parts) didn’t turn into a progressive hell hole in Atlas Shrugged, how could it happen in the real world?

      • Todd,

        Look it up, we do not have a capitalist economy.
        Quasi-capitalist mixed with quasi-fascist. Government controls of business, which is privately owned. Name a business you can simply “open” without first getting somebody’s permission/paying some fee……

        Fascists tend to support a “third position” in economic policy, which they believe superior to both the rampant individualism of laissez-faire capitalism and the severe control of state socialism.[26][27] Italian Fascism and most other fascist movements promote a corporatist economy whereby, in theory, representatives of capital and labour interest groups work together within sectoral corporations to create both harmonious labour relations and maximization of production that would serve the national interest

      • Todd – I think that what you’re saying is true about what they produce and air, but I think the original thought process was how the media started to “brainwash” the masses, i.e, get them thinking like us, to where today there is an acceptance of their thought processes and they have succeeded in pushing their agenda to the point of what the masses will watch on tv. In other words, they were successful in the “dumbing down of America”!

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Thank You Matt.

        • Or maybe America isn’t all that smart to begin with … barely half our population votes (no matter what else they’re doing elections day(s) … of those that do, a good portion are pretty much clueless about who and/or what they’re voting for (i.e., voting in blocks regardless of whether or not they actually want what they’re voting for–to include union members voting Democrat so please don’t give me shit about pointing only to right wingers) … maybe, just maybe, our capitalist systems (those in control of it–the 2%’s) have more to gain that way (why “liberal” Hollywood doesn’t work for me–because it isn’t nearly liberal enough) … the dumbing down of America has been going on since reconstruction. Where religion once worked as an opiate of the masses, it has been replaced by electronic toys and the like. Too many of us vote one way or the other automatically ruling out third parties … now that is DUMB. Whether or not tv is responsible, well, what’s the difference? It isn’t going to change until a greater portion of the country is homeless, on bread lines (again) and finally fed up with the 2%’s calling the shots.

          Here I go again: Workers of America unite!

  22. Okay, Gman, I am going to call you out on this . . . sort of.

    I seem to remember (don’t have time to do the research as my internet connection just might go away at any time – &%##$@@$^&&*^&^# cable isp’s) not too very long ago that you advocated an open border policy in this country?

    If that be the case, then how do you expect for us to win back our freedom and liberty?

    FYI – I seem to be a tad bit older than you so I remember a TV show way back in the early 1950’s that pushed for racial equality. Actually more than one did that way back then, and even back during the radio days of the late 1940’s and even before my time in the 1930’s – Amos & Andy, Jack Benny’s man Rochester are two that come to mind along with the Saturday afternoon matinees (cost a whole dime then which included the soda and popcorn) at the local theater that featured one of my all-time favorite comedians named Steppin Fetchit.

    FYI – if you care to check out the political history of this progressive movement it actually dates back to about the early 1900’s if not earlier. Woodrow Wilson was the first progressive with a democrat label to inhabit the white house – he also was the one who segregated the U.S. military services.

    Okay, since my internet hasn’t crashed yet, you can now fire away at will.

    • And Teddy Roosevelt was the FIRST Progressive to inhabit the White House. He was a Republican.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      PD, Don’t recall me ever advocating an open border. Seems we are having enough trouble keeping people out with a closed border, but immigration should be controlled.

      I’m aware of the history of Progressivism, I believe it dates back into the 1800’s. But I still don’t like it.

      Back in your days, I have no record of the term media manipulation. The earliest date of even studying the matter was the fifties, but unlikely used that early.

      Not firing away Sir, hope I answered your questions.

  23. @ Bob…

    Bob says: Correct, except at the point where the money runs out…….

    A Superior Court judge, in turn, ordered that Maraachli’s breathing tube be removed on Monday. But his family refused, insisting that the boy be released to his family’s care, according to CBC News.

    “I belive in my son,” Moe Maraachli, the boy’s father, told Fox News on Monday. “I will never let my son die in the doctors’ way.”

    The family says removing the ventilator would promise an agonizing death for the boy. They asked that doctors at least perform a tracheotomy that would allow Joseph to die at home, but the Canadian hospital has refused.
    The parents now are trying to move their son to a Detroit hospital. The Children’s Hospital of Michigan agreed to look at Joseph’s lengthy medical record and determine whether he’s a candidate for transfer.

    This is pure crap. Bob, and I cannot believe you feel this way. We must be missing a connection somewhere. If the parents wish to pay for a trach….and take the boy home….where do you or the hospital or the court get off denying that…to even give him enough life for a transfer to a hospital.

    I thought we got past the death camps during WWII and this is what it is if they refuse to let the boy go home or betransferred… is a death camp…complete with a death panel. Has nothing to do with affordability..perform the trach and let the boy go home to die.

    • Where did I agree with them not releasing the child? My second reply to you, I said I did not agree with this:

      Bob said
      “I agree they should be allowed to take the child home for him to die”

      What I was disagreeing with was that you were insinuating that the decision to remove the ventilator would not happen in America and things like this only happened in evil socialist countries. Call them what you will, every country has a death panel whether it iin the form of a court appointed judge or the decision of an insurance executive.

  24. @ Buck.

    Buck says: I’m talking about univeral care afforded to all; not an individual mandate to purchase private insurance.

    Ok no mandates but it still appears that you are talking a tax supported health insurance program. But here goes.

    If it is a tax run government supported position, there would have to be several caveats before I would even consider any sort of compromise.

    1. That it cannot be run like the VA health system.
    2. That all American citizens be on this system. There will be no immigrant or non citizens on this system.
    3. That there will be no exemptions granted to anyone or any entity.
    4. That all government employees have the same health care as the populace.
    5. That there be a basic service and if you wish more, it is paid for by the individual. ( Example, cosmetic surgery, pregnancy, etc).
    6. That the deductible is high enough to prevent common colds frim being treated at the emergency room. Say a $5,000 per family deductible.
    7. THat the expense be capped at a predetermined percentage amount and that it cannot be increased like social security…..say 10% of GNP.
    8. Allow for the purchase of independent insurance and a tax deduction equal to that of the familily deductible under the government run system.
    9. That the income tax system be reworked to where everybody pays a tax…poor included. Do not charge a higher percentage to someone who is rich merely because he is rich. If the other 44% that do not pay taxes were taxed the same percentag,. Say 25% across the board for everybody including capital gains….then there woukd be more than enough money to run the system.
    10. MAke the health care system private to the extent it is not a goverment paid position and no union membership allowed in the health industry.

    I could go on but that is a start.

    • Oh, I forgot…put me in charge. 🙂

    • Buck the Wala says:

      No way I’d put you in charge! Nice try though.

      So, let’s see where I fit in to your points:

      1) I’ve never had any experience with the VA so can’t really speak to this. How would you propose it be run then?
      2) I would want it to be open to more than just US citizens – I’d like to see legal aliens, permanent residents, travellers here on a visa, etc. be included as well; and also to provide some basic emergency care service for illegals as well. Though I’d be open to debate on this one.
      3) Agreed
      4) Agreed
      5) Agreed to a point – I’m sure we would have major disagreements as to what should be included in this basic insurance for all. I’m with you on excluding cosmetic surgery, but would definitely include full pregnancy coverage. Why wouldn’t you cover this? My other concern for allowing supplemental insurance coverage is the creation of a class system where the haves get exceptional care (as all the good doctors will only see these paying customers) and the have-nots get crappy care, but that is something that should be able to be worked out as well.
      6) What deductible? For the supplemental insurance or for the universal care that everyone gets through the government?
      7) See point #6
      8) See concerns raised in point #5
      9) No go, sorry. I could support some form of elimination of special cap gains rates, but I cannot support a flat across the board percentage tax.
      10) Would need to study these issues a bit more.

      • Buck….deductibles for all facets of health care. The purpose here is to make people take care of their colds and splinters.

        Why could you not go with a flat tax? Everybody pays and everybody should pay.

      • munch munch munch munch munch munch munch munch *YUM* *YUM* munch munch munch miunch munch….

    • DisposableCarbonUnit says:

      The Canadian System responds to D13:

      (1) Not sure what the VA system is like, our vets are cared for just like everyone else…and for free.
      (2) Immigrants (legal) have a 3 month wait for free care, non-citizens pay market rate…in cash upfront.
      (3) As in the US, politicians always seem to be first in line.
      (4) gov’t employees are treated just like everyone else.
      (5) basic, emergency, surgical, and pregnancy are all covered if it’s considered elective you pay for it yourself (cosmetic, dental, all paramedical services, etc.)
      (6) No deductible here and that should be changed, too many people do use emergency rooms for a cold. They generally wait 8-12 hours to be seen since a triage nurse determines the severity of the emergency first. It’s not first come first serve, it’s life-threatening first, little boo-boos to the back of the line. I want a small ($10-$20) co-pay in Canadian emergency rooms to eliminate the snifflers but I’m a minority of one in this country.
      (7) Healthcare is expensive and increases every year. You could probably have the same attitude with defense spending…10% not a penny more. Of course there could be situations where this has to be adjusted right?
      (8) Everyone has supplemental here for dental, prescription etc. Or, carry a BIG wallet.
      (9) In Canada you start paying tax after $10,000 in net income…AND Revenue Canada MEANS it!
      (10) Canada is moving in this direction because the private clinics are more efficient. Thought teachers’ unions were tough, trying going against 6000 pissed off nurses! Unions in health care cannot remove all services…they can bitch and whine all they want, but don’t show up for your shift kiss your job good-bye.

      That help any?

  25. Kathy and anyone else,
    I’d be interested in your reaction to this:

    • Many, many signs at the capitol on Saturday reference the Koch brothers as being behind all of this. I think the only thing this proves is that they are not.

      • It’s okay, Soros payed for the making and distribution of those signs. 😉

        • Yeah exactly. They are looking for a bogeyman when the bogeyman is right in front of them – the union bosses!

      • When even ABC can’t even spin it, there’s not much of a story.

        “While Walker’s comments during the taped phone call closely tracked what he has said publicly — expressing refusal to compromise or negotiate with Democrats — they shed new light on the tactics he has considered to discredit his opponents and move the budget process forward.”

      • Kathy,
        How does this prove that they are not behind all of this?

        • Do you read or listen to anything other than left talking points? As the conversation flows, he clearly indicates he doesn’t really know the guy. If this whole push was bought and paid for by the Koch brothers, as the union bosses as told their peeps/protestors to get the attention off of them, they clearly would have been on more familiar terms.

          Really Todd, addresss the issues – how collective bargaining hamstrings any “negotiation” from happening at any level and the real financial implications of the state and how these guaranteed, paid for retirement packages are unsustainable.

          • Buck the Wala says:


            The unions are willing to make many (if not all) of the requested concessions. Why the push to eliminate collective bargaining?

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Buck, It’s not eliminating collective bargaining, that is a left wing fantasy. It is changing what can be bargained, in this case, healthcare and retirement funds. All other areas remain open, with the exception of a cap on raises. The govt. is withing there authority to do this. Collective bargaining is not a “Right”, it is a legislative priviledge. what they giveth, they can taketh away.

            • Collective bargaining is a huge financial drain on our state and it’s a big part of what has gotten to this point to begin with (along with a lot of other states). Long term viability is the goal; not a short term fix.

              Remember, this is for public employees unions only; this is not about private unions at all.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                I know this is for public employee unions only and does not impact private unions. But I wonder if you realize this move has absolutely nothing to do with the economic situation Wisconsin finds itself in. This is about union-busting plain and simply.

                Now there are reasons why you may support union-busting, but lets not kid ourselves that this is about the economy.

                And gman, I’m not confused in the slightest. This does not eliminate collective bargaining, but it does substantially limit its use and application. And surely you don’t believe that just because government has the authority to do something that its a good thing to do!

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Buck, I’m not anti-union. But when they get so big and financially strong that they can get their candidate elected to govt positions, I find that to be a problem. Here’s the result of how things happened to private sector unions in Wisconsin after the Dems changed one tax law on corporate profits two years ago. This past year, Koehler agrred to a 20% wage concession, Subzero, 25% concession. Both Mercury Outboards and Harley Davidson were given a non-negotiable offer, take it we close our doors and move. So no, government actions are rarely good, if ever.

            • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

              I am enjoying several aspects of the Wisconsin dilemma. Having been a civil servant in the past and belonging to a powerless union, I look on the situation from an educated perspective. As a NJ homeowner paying $ 11,000 per year in property tax for a modest home I look on it from a survival perspective.

              Like so many things in this life, Walt Kelly’s comment in “Pogo” during the Vietnam war is apt. “We have met the enemy, and he is us!”

              The problem with “collective bargaining ” is that the bargainers who represent you and me, the government flacks if you will, have never heard “just say NO”. All those teacher, sanitation, fire, police and every other contract had to be approved by someone on the other side. They have failed miserably or they have, as in NY City’s past, been ordered to “settle”. It is so easy for a politician to settle when he knows the bill will not come due on his watch. When an impasse is reached in negotiating, the contract goes to something called binding arbitration. Why this happens I cannot say. I have been involved in negotiating for my powerless union when the City just waited us out rather than agree to arbitration. Five years without a contract can make you settle very reasonably. The binding arbitration I have seen for the “important” unions such as Police, Teachers etc. usually goes as follows: Inflation is zero, the union wants 8 percent because some other union somewhere else got 8 percent. The union wants “step” payments for just being there. The municipality can afford 2 percent. The arbitrator rules for the union. They get the 8 plus the steps plus retroactive, plus interest plus pension credit. End of story. Who the hell are these arbitrators anyway? Are they in a union?

              Simple solution is to put proposed union settlements to a plebiscite every November. If the Town, City, State is flush and feels generous, so be it. If things are tough, then it is a do without year. So, unlike the governor of Wisconsin or the governor of New Jersey, I think the problem is not of the Union’s making, the problem is the government and the system it has created. As my Pappy used to say, human nature being what it is, if you make it easy for a man to steal, He will.

      • Kathy,
        I’m still waiting for your opinion on the Walker phone call.

        But nice try at changing the subject.

        • Uhhh, look above? Nothing there. I would recommend he be more on guard to the tactics of the left as they will do anything.

          I’m still waiting to your responses to the WEAC article.

      • SK Trynosky Sr says:


        Yup. In my old agency, if you worked 40 years, you retired at full pay. But, it gets better. In NY State there is no State or City tax on municipal or state pensions. Therefore, you get More than your salary was. And, if you were at the top of the salary scale, you received incentives to retire early, the salary checkbook and pension checkbook are supplied from different sources. Now, this has fortunately changed for new employees and the future numbers will not be as bad.

        What has not changed is the “best three” rule which allows certain City and State workers (not just in NY) to have their retirement pay based on their highest salary over a three year period. This, INCLUDES OVERTIME. That is why, here in NJ and in NY you have Cops and transit workers who earned $ 70,000 base pay receiving $ 100,000 pensions. Nice deal!

        Again, the problem is not so much the Cops or their Union nor the other State or municipal unions. The problem is with the politicians who allowed this to happen by negotiating in bad faith for their constituents or in appointing bad arbitrators and giving them instructions not to “rock the boat”.

    • My take on the Walker phone call…

      How arrogant is Walker to think one of the Koch brothers would call him?

      How stupid is Walker to think that one of the Koch brothers would have that conversation and jeopardize everything they’ve worked for?

      How incompetent is his staff to not verify the identity of the caller?

      How stupid is Walker to be that candid without verifying the caller?

      Sounds like Walker isn’t quite as honest and forth right as he says. Plenty of secondary motives and dirty tricks.

      If Obama and a George Soros imposter had a similar conversation, you’d all be having a fit about how it proves all of your paranoid conspiracy theories…

      • Todd,

        You seem to be only interested in personalizing the debate.
        “How arrogant is Walker”
        “How stupid is Walker”
        “How incompetent is his staff”
        “How stupid is Walker”
        “Walker isn’t quite as honest”
        “Plenty of secondary motives and dirty tricks”

        Isn’t the debate supposed to be about what is best for Wisconsin?

      • Obama and Soros meet and talk directly. They don’t even bother to hide the agenda they both have against us (along with Trumka, etal). Heck, until Beck he even had communist Van Jones right on his staff.

  26. Bottom Line says:

    Media has been used as a social engineering tool for the sake of agendas for quite some time. They figured out a long time ago(WAY before TV) that popular opinion and social norms could be guided and/or persuaded in a particular direction via media.

    Just two well known relatively recent examples: J.P. Morgan is noted in the 1915 congressional record for hiring journalists and sending them to the 50 most influential newspapers for the sole purpose of seeing how easily popular opinion could be manipulated. Later in the 50’s, the CIA started OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD.

    But are we REALLY being manipulated for the sake of a liberal progressive agenda?

    Of course we are, …DUH! We’re also being manipulated for EVERY OTHER agenda too, everything from buying more cat food to supporting wars over bullshit and fighting global warming.


    • gmanfortruth says:

      Hey BL!

      When our resident lefties came out in defense of my claims, the best they could come up with is that I’m crazy! So we continue to wait for a rational defense 🙂

      • Bottom Line says:

        Sup G!

        If you’re crazy, then so am I and MANY others…cuz I see it as plain as day. I can’t engage in media and NOT see it.

      • G-man,
        There is no “rational defense” to this, because your presented no facts – only your opinion. And my opinion is just as valid as yours.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Yes, it is opinion, that used examples as facts. In my comments I referred to two movies as evidence. I did notice from the comments above, that I was implying that it is “every” show or movie, or that it even occurs in every one of those. That was not my intention or my opinion. Just that it is happening.

          Now, I ‘ve been through this with you and Buck, I present facts, you ignore them. Since the facts that I present are ignored, there is no point in arguing further, as my future facts will likely be equally ignored, or as you like to do at times, twist them into a pretzel.

        • And, Todd, G-man has gone CRAZY!!!!


          • gmanfortruth says:

            Well, Charlie, Crazy might be an interesting term to be associated with, but for the sake of the moment, you are not the first, and likley not the last 🙂

  27. @Todd,
    The phone prank shows that, no matter how busy the governor says he is when refusing calls from opposing politicians, he’s never too busy to talk to a contributor.

    Here’s what I can’t figure out about the liberal pushing un-American equality and a socialist agenda: aren’t Glenn beck and Rush Limbaugh part of the media? If we separate them out and say “the media” are not a monolithic force, then why is that not true of everything else.

    • D13,

      If we separate them out and say “the media” are not a monolithic force, then why is that not true of everything else.

      Sorry, but I don’t understand your question. Could you expand on it a little bit for me?

    • USW and Todd…..this D13 is not me. I did not write this question and have not been part of this phone prank issue. I do not know who this is.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Colonel, Good Day, Sir! I know who it is! There was another comment that went to moderation by the same person, different screen name. Mouse over the fake D13, it shows up.

        • I also saw that D13 was in my original post at the top and that one IS me. That is my question. I can guess that I forgot to sign on under word press…but this phone prank is not me at all.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            No, it was not you, that I can verify. I went to this persons blog. Seems he has much in common with, Charlie.
            Hey Charlie, you know a person with the initials dk?

          • Colonel,

            I apologize. I saw the name and assumed too much. I also visited this person’s blog and see that it is not you. I found it interesting. I will email you shortly.

  28. G!

    Not sure if this will post, wordpress does not like me today.
    Funny, I can post on yesterdays just fine.

    ” The Kids Are All Right, which is the story of two lesbians raising a family, came in 113th in ticket sales.”

    Will give credit, Avatar & Brokeback Mountain scored at the boxoffice.

    Hollywood’s Liberal Agenda Does Not Reflect America
    Opinion by FRC
    (January 17, 2011) in Entertainment

    I didn’t watch any of last night’s Golden Globes, but I heard enough about it to know that I didn’t miss anything. After a week of complaining that America’s biggest problem is incivility, it was somewhat ironic that these same liberals would sit through a Hollywood show that went out of its way to insult everyone.

    Host Ricky Gervais, who spent three hours degrading every person he introduced (and plenty he didn’t), hardly struck the respectful tone so many on the Left are calling for. In the end, it was probably an accurate representation of most of industry, which seems to believe that it’s not “art” if it doesn’t offend.

    As in past years, the Globes proved that studios are far less concerned about entertaining people than they with indoctrinating them. Last night’s awards were a celebration — not of America’s values, but of Hollywood’s. Projects like The Kids Are All Right, Black Swan, “Glee,” and others were rewarded for pushing the cultural envelope or advancing a liberal political agenda.

    That may be how Hollywood defines “success,” but it certainly isn’t how audiences do. Neither of those films cracked the top 49 in last year’s box office. In fact, The Kids Are All Right, which is the story of two lesbians raising a family, came in 113th in ticket sales. Toy Story 3, last year’s box office winner, made 21 times more money than Kids did. What’s more, Toy Story 3’s $415,004,880 was more than all four R-rated nominees for Best Picture combined!

    Audiences want to be inspired and uplifted. They don’t want to spend two hours covering their kids’ eyes and ears. And the numbers bear that out. In the top 17 movies of 2010, not one was rated R. Obviously, wholesome, family-friendly shows are not only good for the soul, they’re good for business! And until producers really embrace that reality, they can expect more unhappy endings — like this headline from earlier today: “Hollywood box office slump continues.”

  29. Common Man says:

    A thinking person, with a developed self-confidence, sees the variety of propaganda, relentlessly promoted by all entities, for what it is, and acts accordingly.

    Everyone is subject to conditioning to some degree or another, it is a genetic fault driven by emotion. How each individual deals with these circumstances can effect society as a whole; especially when like minded people become a majority. If enough individuals decide that a particular item, process, law, or mindset is the righteous one, then it becomes an accepted norm.

    What Gman is pointing out is that each and every particular group is working to promote their specific agenda through methodologies developed long before WWII; It’s called selling through manipulation, and it is primarily driven by feeding on emotions.

    All of us here have discussed a variety of topics that resulted in various opinions; and in some cases changed minds. We all used emotion and logic to convey our righteousness with the intent to convert those who opossed us. The difference (for the most part) at this site is that the majority involved generally care about the person(s) they engage.

    The ones that Gman points out are only concerned with getting their way, and at all costs

    Some here feel that Gman is crazy for believing liberals and progressives are promoting an indignant position, while others believe progressives and liberals are driven to usurp freedom in order to cease control.

    Society cannot limit or minimize one individuals freedom and liberty and still proclaim it is a free society; it is an oxymoron. And by doing so everyone, freemen, liberals, progressives, conservatives and moderates will then evolve into slaves.


  30. MTV’s Skins :Sex, drugs and rock-n-roll for teens.
    HBO’s Big Love :Men with multiple wives.
    Sister Wives :Plural mariages.
    Tha Life Atlanta :Big black gay men and how they roll…(This one really made me laugh though when I heard about it)
    All the Reality shows.
    Several other shows but I hope yall get my drift.
    Why promote negative social behavior in a “cool” and “positive” light if you really want a society with less problems?

  31. I’m listening to some loser Dem from Indiana that’s on the lam. The justifications used by these lowlifes for their behavior is unbelievable.

    Accountability? Sense of responsibility? Apparently when you are on the left and you don’t like the bill, all’s fair.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Maybe the Governors should issue a state of emergency. They could say this, : Due to our severe fiscal problems, and the fact that we can’t get a vote to happen, under our emergency law, all government employees will only recieve 1/2 of the compensation, until you elected officials can get a resolution voted on.” That would bring them home!

    • I think they should all RELOCATE to …………..Chicago!!

      Seems fitting doesn’t it?

      • Hang with Rahm. IF ONLY we could just round them up and put them all together and they could collective bargain with each other and their own money forever!

  32. Liberals and Progressives by their own self described nature desire CHANGE. They have established it in the very definition of both terms.

    So you see, it is their nature to push to overturn existing for something that is new, different, but most importantly NOT the old.

    Now you combine that mindset with the power of Media and what you get is that which they tamely refer to as “pushing the envelope”. Its purpose is clear and simple.

    Cause the existing cultural norms to crack, splinter and collapse. Impose a vision of something new that is a direct assault on the existing norm.

    The irony is that they will have eventually have to change the new norm as well. It is their nature. They have no choice but to act upon it.

    Why? Because they refuse to THINK. And for this reason they are like the wild beast. They react instinctively, not due to rational choice based on reason.

    So in this respect GMan you are both right and wrong.

    There is no doubt in my mind that the left has and will continue to use the media outlets to push their agenda. They happen to control most of the media production, regardless of what the lefties tell you about “corporate capitalists” who own the companies. They also happen to be socialists or their close cousins. But it is not necessarily an attempt to “sell us on socialism” directly.

    It is an attempt to erode the fabric of the existing society. To pave the way for the CHANGE they believe is necessary.

    For some that is in fact a socialist society. For others it may not be in their own mind, but it will almost certainly be in reality. Some know exactly what they want and are working to get it, others just enjoy upsetting the apple cart. They are the most dangerous. It is they who affect the youth more than any. Rebellion is a common thread among youth and they feed on it when it is spoon fed to them daily. It is this second group who enable the others without knowing what they do. Just because they think it is funny.

  33. Bonnie Carniello says:

    I agree that if you don’t approve, don’t watch it. I boycott anything I’m opposed to from a business to a product to a TV show. There are certain names I only need to hear that will be on and I will switch to watching FOX news.

    If the art and movies are not making money, they won’t continue and I love G rated movies, don’t I USW? He has had me watch a couple of R rated movies which I typically do not do. The Last Samari and Con-Air (is that right) with the ex-Army Ranger. I loved both movies, but that doesn’t set a precedent for me to watch anything I want. I had rules for my children and I kept those rules pretty much.

    USW, could you send me an e-mail to address your surgery? I am very concerned.

    Regards, Bonnie

  34. Hrmmm…

    Two Libyan fighter pilots landed in Malta and defected due to refusing orders to fire upon civilians.International SOS is in Malta.Rumors of American, German and Chinese vessels entering Libyan waters…
    Gaddafi’s son warns of civil war as Libyan protests widen…Gadaffi’s son SAYS:
    we will fight to the last man, woman
    and the last bullet.

    • TC

      He is toast. I saw someplace today where one of his loyal sidekicks, now turned to the other side, said that Gadaffi himself ordered the airline bomb.

      Quite frankly, I am not sure the old man has been in charge for some time. He just seems like a walking zombie to me.

    • Like any wise man would do, Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi (or if you prefer, Gadhafi, Khaddafy, Quaddafi, Kaddafi, etc.), surrounds himself with beautiful, strong women.

      The Libyan strongman, who has ruled since 1969, has 30 to 40 female body guards, all of whom are said to be virgins. If you’d like to confront him, you have to get past these no-nonsense “Amazonian” staffers. Such a task may seem simple if you’re unafraid of taking down a girl, but never underestimate the power of a hard working or tough woman.

      In praise of brave women qualified to protect men, here are some of the Libyan leader’s appealing and well-groomed female security guards.

      Read more:

      LOI say’s, it’s good to be the king…..

  35. So many of you claim to watch little or no TV (except for Fox News of course – is that required to be a true “conservative??). So how do you know it has a “Liberal/Progressive socialist agenda” if you don’t watch it?

    • Nope.
      What is required to be a conservative is a logical mind capable of deductive reasoning while thinking in and out of the box my good sir! 🙂

    • Todd,

      I watch some TV, even enjoy this show. Doesn’t mean I do not see how they play us on some of their plot lines.

      Prime Time CBS Drama ‘The Good Wife’ Impugns Tea Party as ‘Racist Organization’

      Read more:

      • gmanfortruth says:

        LOI, Good find! Maybe Charlie will change his moniker of me from crazy, to just slighty insane 🙂

        • A show I do not watch. Seems like there is a lot of teenage pregnancy on TV & the real world. But TV always seems to make us sympathize with the pregnant teen. Rarely do they show the poverty most children raised by single mothers face nor mention the high rate of those kids ending up in prison.

          Number 1: The Baby Plot

          Try to follow this. A pregnant teenage girl whose baby isn’t her boyfriend’s but her boyfriends’ best friend’s is going to give her baby to the wife of the Glee director who is pretending to be pregnant so that her husband doesn’t leave her. Even for Glee, this plot is highly convoluted and ridiculous. Will’s wife blackmailing the doctor was especially unenjoyable and there was a collective sigh of relief when the whole “scandal” was uncovered near the end of the mid-season. There is, however, one exception to this: seeing Will’s angry reaction to the news his wife wasn’t pregnant really showed off Matthew Morrison’s acting prowess.

  36. OK, related topic. Politically Correct, or NOT.

    I just love the “opponents” comments to this.

    • It is definitely an appeal to emotion yet is has basis in fact since the data used to state the majority of abortions from black women was true. I am pro-life unless the mothers life is in jeopardy. This statement from the pro-choice council member uses rhetoric as well.

      [But some local politicians, like City Council Member Letitia James, find the message crass.
      “It is misguided to use Black History Month as a tool to promote this message,” James said in a statement. “Every woman has the right to make personal choices in regards to her body, and I respect many different points of view, but to compare abortion to terrorism and genocide is highly offensive.”]

      She does nothing but devalue life IMHO. Life is the most amazingly precious thing in the entire Universe. On a universal level it is the most scarce commodity there is!
      I find it highly offensive and absurdly ridiculous that she defends her “right” to kill an innocent by marginalizing abortion below terrorism and genocide which are both linked to the loss of innocent life in order to sway belief.

  37. Court Weighs the Power of Congress
    Published: February 22, 2011

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court heard arguments on Tuesday in a case that touched on the most pressing constitutional question of the day: just how much power does Congress have to regulate matters ordinarily left up to the states? The fate of President Obama’s health care law will turn on how that question is answered.

    But based on the justices’ comments, the lurid facts of the case and the odd posture in which it reached the court, the eventual decision will probably offer only limited guidance on the health care law’s prospects.

    The case heard Tuesday, Bond v. United States, No. 09-1227, arose from a domestic dispute. Carol A. Bond, a Pennsylvania woman, did not take it well when she learned that her husband was the father of her best friend’s child. She promised to make her former friend’s life “a living hell,” and she drew on her skills as a microbiologist to do so.

    Ms. Bond spread harmful chemicals on her friend’s car, mailbox and doorknob. The friend suffered only a minor injury.

    Such matters are usually handled by the local police and prosecutors. In Ms. Bond’s case, though, federal prosecutors charged her with using unconventional weapons in violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993, a treaty concerned with terrorists and rogue states.

    At the argument, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. suggested that Congress had gone too far. Suppose, he said, that Ms. Bond had “decided to retaliate against her former friend by pouring a bottle of vinegar in the friend’s goldfish bowl.”

    “As I read this statute, Justice Alito said, “that would be a violation of this statute, potentially punishable by life imprisonment.”

    Ms. Bond’s lawyer, Paul D. Clement, said that a chemical used by his client was not much more exotic than vinegar. “There is something sort of odd about the government’s theory that says that I can buy a chemical weapon at,” he said.

    In her appeal to the federal appeals court in Philadelphia, Ms. Bond argued that Congress did not have the constitutional power to use a chemical weapons treaty to address a matter of a sort routinely handled by state authorities. She cited the 10th Amendment, which says that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

    The appeals court ruled that Ms. Bond did not have standing to raise a 10th Amendment defense. Only states, it said, can invoke the amendment.

    Federal prosecutors initially embraced that line of argument, but the Justice Department abandoned it in the Supreme Court, now saying that Ms. Bond was free to try to mount a defense based on the amendment.

    Since Ms. Bond and her nominal adversary agreed on the central issue in the case, the court appointed a lawyer, Stephen R. McAllister, to argue for the position the government had disowned.

    The outcome of the case on the standing point did not seem in much doubt on Tuesday.

    Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., for instance, said it would be “pretty harsh” to forbid Ms. Bond from challenging her conviction on the ground that the law under which she was convicted exceeded Congressional authority.

    But the justices struggled with two other distinctions. One was how to disentangle claims that Congress had exceeded its enumerated powers in Article I of the Constitution from ones based on the 10th Amendment. The other was whether there were at least some 10th Amendment claims that could be pressed only by states.

    Justice Elena Kagan suggested that the case could be decided simply on the ground that Congress had exceeded the powers listed in Article I of the Constitution.

    “Are there any peculiarly 10th Amendment claims that you’re making?” she asked Mr. Clement. He replied that Ms. Bond relied “principally” on the argument that Congress had exceeded its powers but that it was possible the 10th Amendment played a role as well.

    Justice Anthony M. Kennedy added that individuals had a role to play in cases that at first blush seem to implicate only a clash between federal and state sovereignty.

    “Your underlying premise,” Justice Kennedy told Mr. McAllister, “is that the individual has no interest in whether or not the state has surrendered its powers to the federal government, and I just don’t think the Constitution was framed on that theory.”

    • This is a very significant statement, especially coming from Kennedy.

      ““Your underlying premise,” Justice Kennedy told Mr. McAllister, “is that the individual has no interest in whether or not the state has surrendered its powers to the federal government, and I just don’t think the Constitution was framed on that theory.” ”

      Now I hope he remembers that when the health care appeal reaches the Supreme Court.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        @JAC – I wonder if they’ll write Kennedy’s approach into the opinion? That would be very important.

    • This is really interesting!

      Bond v. United States (09-1227)

      Oral argument: Feb. 22, 2011

      Appealed from: United States Court of Appeals for Third Circuit (Sept. 17, 2009)

      Petitioner Carol Anne Bond spread chemicals around the home of Myrlinda Haynes to seek revenge for Haynes’s impregnation by Bond’s husband. Bond was charged with several crimes, including use of a chemical weapon under 18 U.S.C. § 229(a)(1). Congress enacted the statute pursuant to the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993 in order to meet American obligations under the Convention. Bond appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on several grounds, including a claim that 18 U.S.C. § 299(a)(1) violates the Tenth Amendment because the police power to prosecute criminals is a power reserved to the states. The Third Circuit found that as a private party attempting to claim a violation of state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment, Bond lacked standing. Bond appealed to the Supreme Court on the issue of her standing. In addition to determining whether private parties have standing to bring suit under the Tenth Amendment, the decision may also impact the scope of Congress’s authority to enact statutes implementing international treaty obligations, and what checks, if any, exist on that power.

      * [Question presented]
      * [Issue]
      * [Facts]
      * [Discussion]
      * [Analysis]

      Question presented

      Whether a criminal defendant convicted under a federal statute has standing to challenge her conviction on grounds that, as applied to her, the statute is beyond the federal government’s enumerated powers and inconsistent with the Tenth Amendment.


      Where a criminal defendant was convicted of use of a chemical weapon under 18 U.S.C. § 229(a)(1), may she challenge the validity of the statute under the Tenth Amendment, or as a private party, does she lack standing to make a Tenth Amendment challenge?


      Carol Anne Bond is a trained microbiologist, who worked as a technical assistant at Rohm and Haas. See United States v. Bond, 581 F.3d 128, 132 (3rd Cir. 2009). Bond’s best friend, Myrlinda Haynes, became pregnant, and Bond discovered that the father of the child was her husband, Clifford Bond. See id. After this discovery, Carol Anne Bond began to spread chemicals around Haynes’s home, including on doorknobs, on car door handles, and in her mailbox. See id. at 133. Bond continued spreading chemicals over several months, doing so on at least twenty-four occasions. See id. She had stolen the chemical 10-chloro-10H-phenoxarsine from her employer and ordered a vial of potassium dichromate on the Internet. See id. at 132. Haynes discovered the chemicals in most cases and avoided harm, but in one case she burned her thumb. See id. at 133.

      Haynes complained to the police about the chemicals, and the police suggested that she wipe door handles clean before using them in the future. See Bond, 581 F.3d at 133. Haynes then took the matter to the United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS) and reported the presence of chemicals on her mailbox. See id. The postal inspectors placed surveillance cameras on Haynes’s property, and caught Bond taking a business envelope out of Haynes’s mailbox and placing potassium dichromate in Haynes’s car muffler. See id. The postal inspectors traced the potassium dichromate to a storage center at Rohm and Haas. See id.

      The police obtained an arrest warrant for Bond based on the videos, the missing chemicals at Rohm and Haas, and a chemical analysis of the substance in Haynes’s muffler. See Bond, 581 F.3d at 133. Once in a holding cell in the Philadelphia Post Office, Bond waived her constitutional rights and admitted to taking the chemicals from Rohm and Haas. See id. The police executed a search warrant of Bond’s home and discovered chemicals as well as Haynes’s mail. See id. A grand jury charged Bond with two counts of possession and use of a chemical weapon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 229(a)(1), which implements American obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993. See id. Bond was also charged with two counts of mail theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1708. See id. Bond moved to dismiss the chemical weapons charges, arguing that Section 229(a)(1) is unconstitutional because it violates principles of federalism and the guarantee of fair notice under the Due Process Clause. See id. at 133–34. The Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the motion. See id. Bond also argued that the search of her home was illegal, but the court held that there was probable cause for the search See id. Bond then pled guilty to all charges. See id. At sentencing, the court increased her charges by two levels under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3, and sentenced her to six years imprisonment. See id.

      Bond appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on the grounds that 18 U.S.C. § 229(a)(1) violates the Tenth Amendment as an unconstitutional intrusion of federal power into areas of state sovereignty. See id. at 136–38. The court rejected the Tenth Amendment claim on the grounds that Bond lacked standing as a private party to claim that the federal government had impinged on state sovereignty. See id. at 136.

      Bond appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Third Circuit was incorrect in concluding that she did not have standing to sue for an infringement of state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment, and the Court granted certiorari on October 12, 2010. See Bond v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 455 (2010). After certiorari was granted, the Department of Justice reversed its position and conceded that the Third Circuit’s decision on standing was incorrect. See Adam Liptak, New York Times, A 10th Amendment Drama Fit for Daytime TV Heads to the Supreme Court. The Court appointed Stephen R. McAllister to defend the decision of the Third Circuit. See Bond Counsel Appointment Order (Nov. 10, 2010).


      The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will determine whether a private party can challenge a federal statute on the grounds that it violates the Tenth Amendment. The decision may also affect the bounds of Congress’s authority to enact laws implementing obligations of treaties entered into by the President.

      Scope of the Treaty Power

      Emphasizing the uniqueness of the Treaty Power under Article II of the Constitution, Stephen R. McAllister, the counsel appointed to defend the judgment, argues that giving third parties standing to challenge the constitutionality of laws passed pursuant to the Treaty Power would unnecessarily interfere with the sensitive areas of national interest in which the Treaty Power is normally used. See Brief for Amicus Curiae Appointed to Defend Judgment Below (“Appointed Counsel”) at 41. McAllister notes that in entering treaty obligations, both the President and the Senate make decisions based on delicate foreign policy choices that directly affect the national interest. See id. Because these decisions are so important and create obligations between the United States and foreign powers, McAllister argues that individuals should not be able to challenge such determinations by the political branches of the government in court. See id. Allowing standing, McAllister contends, would diminish the federal government’s power to act on the world stage and influence foreign affairs. See id.

      On the other hand, the Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense (“Eagle Forum”) cautions that an adoption of McAllister’s argument could, in practice, make all statutes passed pursuant to treaty obligations free from constitutional challenge. See Brief for Amicus Curiae Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense in Support of Petitioner at 11, 13. Eagle Forum argues that, like all other federal statutes, statutes passed to implement treaty obligations are subject to constitutional checks and principles of federalism. See id. at 11–13. Eagle Forum contends that these checks were written into the Constitution to protect the people, and that people should therefore have standing to challenge federal laws under the Tenth Amendment, even if the law was passed pursuant to a treaty obligation. See id. at 4–5. If the Court were to rule differently, Eagle Forum argues, the federal government would have a freer hand, at least when passing laws pursuant to a treaty, in encroaching on matters that have traditionally been handled by the states. See id.

      Federalism Concerns

      Alabama and six other states (“States”) argue that the ability of criminal defendants to challenge a federal rule on state sovereignty grounds is an important check on the federal government. See Brief of Amici Curiae the States of Alabama, et al. in Support of Petitioner at 25. The States argue that some states acquiesce to federal intrusions to gain financial rewards, while other states may lack the ability to challenge every federal intrusion on their sovereignty, and therefore individuals have an important role in challenging federal encroachments on states’ rights. See id. at 27–28.

      McAllister does not envision a role for private individuals in challenging laws passed pursuant to treaties on Tenth Amendment grounds. See Brief for Appointed Counsel at 50. He further suggests that federal statutes created under the Treaty Power might not even be proper for the judiciary to examine because of the political nature of such treaty decisions and because of the delicate foreign policy concerns that treaties implicate. See id. at 50. McAllister contends that allowing Bond to bring this claim might result in the judiciary expressing a lack of respect for the other branches of government, and might embarrass the United States on the international level. See id. at 52.

      The Rights of Private Parties to Sue for Violations of the Tenth Amendment

      The United States argues that a ruling in favor of Bond would protect the rights of criminal defendants to challenge the validity of a federal statute. See Brief of Amicus Curiae the United States in Support of Petitioner at 21. The United States contends that because an unconstitutional federal statute under which a criminal defendant is convicted always harms the defendants, the defendant should have standing to challenge the law, even under the Tenth Amendment. See id. at 23.

      On the other hand, McAllister believes the government’s position would allow private parties to essentially defend the rights of another party – here the state – in federal court. See Brief for Appointed Counsel at 19. McAllister argues that the Court should rule against standing here to protect the rights of third parties that are not present in court to argue their case, as the third parties are in the best position to advocate for their own rights. See id.


      The meaning of a single sentence in Tennessee Electric Power Co. v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 306 U.S. 118 (1939), is a key issue in this case. Bond argues that the sentence stands for a special standing rule that applies only to Tenth Amendment standing claims. See Brief for Petitioner, Carole Anne Bond at 14–15. Bond then argues that that special standing rule is not currently good law. See id. at 15. McAllister states that the sentence in Tennessee Electric is still good law because it is a part of a more general rule that third parties cannot assert the legal rights of others. See Brief for the Amicus Curiae Appointed to Defend the Judgment Below (“Appointed Counsel”) at 15.

      Special Rule or Continuation of Modern Standing Law?

      Bond argues that this case is governed by modern standing law, which focuses on three factors: injury-in-fact, causation, and redressability. See Brief for Petitioner at 22. Bond argues that she suffered an injury-in-fact because she has been convicted and imprisoned for a violation of the statute she alleges is unconstitutional. See id. at 14. Bond further argues that the reason she is in prison was caused by a violation of the statute. See id. Finally, Bond argues that a ruling in her favor would result in redress – her being released from prison. See id. Bond asserts that she would clearly have standing if the Court applies this modern formulation of standing law. See id. at 14–15.

      This approach, Bond argues, was ignored in the lower courts, which, she contends, created a special standing rule for Tenth Amendment claims based on a passage in Tennessee Electric Power Co. v. Tennessee Valley Authority. See Brief for Petitioner at 15. The Tennessee Electric Court stated, “as we have seen there is no objection to the [Tennessee Valley Authority’s] operations by the states, and, if this were not so, the appellants, absent the states or their officers, have no standing in this suit to raise any question under the [Tenth] amendment.” 306 U.S. at 144. This standing rule states that a private party lacks standing to pursue a Tenth Amendment challenge unless a state or its officers are a party to the litigation. See id. at 17.

      Bond urges the Court to reject a special standing rule for Tenth Amendment claims. See Brief for Petitioner at 21. First, Bond states that the special test may not be relevant anymore because Tennessee Electric was decided using a now abandoned “legal interest” test for standing. See id. at 19. Additionally, Bond argues that the sentence should not be given the weight of binding precedent because it is not essential to the Tennessee Electric holding and the reasoning is difficult to apply in practice. See id. at 19, 21–22.

      McAllister argues that Tennessee Electric is consistent to the current standing law, despite its articulation prior to the Court’s establishment of the modern law of standing. See Brief for Appointed Counsel at 17. McAllister argues that Tennessee Electric is an extension of the well-established standing principle that third parties cannot assert the legal rights of others. See id. at 15. McAllister argues that states are not allowed to bring claims on behalf of its citizens, and similarly, citizens should not be allowed to bring claims on behalf of the state. See id. at 20. Because Bond is not the state, she cannot assert the state’s rights in this Tenth Amendment challenge. See id. at 15.

      Because McAllister frames Tennessee Electric as an extension of the third-party principle, a key issue is whether Bond’s case is indeed a Tenth Amendment claim. See Brief for Appointed Counsel at 27. McAllister characterizes this case as a Tenth Amendment claim because the federal statute, 18 U.S.C. §229, was enacted through Congress’s Treaty Power, as implemented by the Necessary and Proper Clause, not Congress’s Article I § 8 enumerated powers. See id. at 28. Furthermore, he argues, Bond explicitly argues that 18 U.S.C. §229 intrudes on state sovereignty and that the Tenth Amendment is a limitation on the Treaty Power. See id. at 31. Because this is a Tenth Amendment claim, McAllister argues, a state must bring the suit because it affects the state’s sovereignty vis-à-vis that of the federal government and the rights of private parties like Bond are not directly implicated. See id. at 32.

      McAllister goes on to argue that the Treaty Power is unique and deserves a special standing rule. See Brief for Appointed Counsel at 37. McAllister emphasizes that the plain meanings of several sections of the Constitution show that the Treaty Power is inherently federal and deserving of unique treatment in regards to standing. See id. at 38–39.

      The Tenth Amendment and Private Citizens

      Bond not only argues that standing law has changed since Tennessee Electric but also that the Tenth Amendment’s role in constitutional structure has changed. See Brief for Petitioner at 27. Bond states that in 1939, when Tennessee Electric was decided, courts ignored the Tenth Amendment and expanded federal jurisdiction into traditionally state-dominated areas. See Brief for Petitioner at 24. Bond argues that the recent decisions in Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), and New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), reflect a new view that the Tenth Amendment can be used to limit the scope Congress’s enumerated powers. See Brief for Petitioner at 26. Bond contends that those two recent decisions show that the Tenth Amendment is a tool designed to protect individuals from expanding federal jurisdiction and that individuals challenging the government must merely meet the basic modern standing requirements. See Brief for Petitioner at 27.

      On the other hand, McAllister argues that the Tenth Amendment must protect the interests of states and not individuals. See Brief for Appointed Counsel at 15. McAllister argues that states have a strong interest in controlling the litigation because Tenth Amendment cases affecting federal-state relationships have significant consequences to states. See id. at 21. Furthermore, McAllister asserts that states may be negatively affected if citizens are allowed to bring claims on behalf of the state because those decisions litigated by citizens would have stare decisis effect on the states. See id. States may not support the result from a privately-litigated case but would still be forced to abide by those decisions. See id. at 21–22. McAllister also asserts that allowing Tenth Amendment cases would increase federal courts’ case burdens. See id. at 22. Finally, McAllister argues that private citizens have alternative methods of asserting their rights, such as petitioning their state governments and participating in the state’s political process. See id. at 24–25.


      The Supreme Court must determine whether a private party has standing to bring a claim under the Tenth Amendment. Bond argues that she should not be deprived of her liberty based on a statute that violates the principles of federalism and state sovereignty guaranteed in the Tenth Amendment. Stephen McAllister counters that as a criminal defendant and not a state party, Bond lacks standing to bring a claim under the Tenth Amendment, because the Tenth Amendment affects the relationship between the federal government and the states, not between the federal government and private individuals. The Court’s decision will likely impact the scope of the Treaty Power and Congress’s authority to enact laws to implement treaty obligations. Most importantly, the Court will determine whether a private individual may argue in federal court that a federal statute violates the Tenth Amendment.

  38. The Left in action in their true form. I think calling them progressives is too kind – communists is more like it in this case. & Van Jones call for Saturday march on ALL 50
    state capitols

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      @Kathy – soooo calling on people to exercise their first amendment right to assemble and free speech is communistic? Hell – I thought that was patriotic?!?! So is the exercise of one’s constitutional rights only legitimate if the outcome aligns with conservative political ideology? (Big SIGH)

      Talk me off this ledge please!

      • Van Jones is a self-admitted communist. Certainly he has the right to free speech, protest etal.

        Do you believe even for a minute that he is calling for peaceful protests????

        This chaos in WI, OH, IN caused by the unions is something they are going to take advantage of.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          @Kathy – do I believe for a minute that he is calling for peaceful protests?

          Can you show me where he is calling for violence?

          People can think differently than you Kathy without calling for violence.

      • “Talk me off this ledge please!”

        Talk you off? If the talk on this blog alone over the last 2 years hasn’t enabled you to grasp some perspective and you instead choose to continue to ignore and deny that which is happening all around you – then heck – take a flying leap buddy!

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          It was a figure of speech Kathy. I’ll explain that next time.

          My rear view mirror on the last two years tells me that things are not as bad as you’d like me to believe they are.

          I’m not less free than I was two years ago.

          I am not poorer than I was two years ago (Health care costs have gone up in 2011 due to “reform” – but my met is much higher).

          I’m as happy if not happier than I was two years ago.

          I don’t have a bunker or cabin or cave stocked with dry goods and a weapons cache to fend off the government (or Van Jones) – and I don’t have any logical reason to think I will need any of it….

          I don’t live in denial of anything – I realize we live in a shitty world and things are tough, but I do try and balance it out so I don’t whip myself into a frenzy and lose “perspective”.

          So I’m good ma’am. Thanks for asking.

          • Ray

            “I’m not less free than I was two years ago.”

            Two years ago did you have to submit to an electronic scanner or strip search at the airport?

            Two years ago did you have to purchase health insurance or suffer a “tax penalty” by the Fed Govt?

            Two years ago did you need and FDA or USDA approval permit to sell your veggies at the local farmer’s market?

            You may not be bothered by these but they are in fact an erosion of your freedom. Little bites become big bites but we don’t notice.

            As for food storage, there are hundreds of logical reasons to store up on food, water and first aid items. Aside from fear of riots or marshal law.

            Now for this: “I don’t live in denial of anything “. God I hope this is just a catch phrase and not the way you actually think. I’m betting on catch phrase.

            • Ray Hawkins says:


              (1) I’ve been electronically scanned at airports since at least back in 2001. I don’t feel any less free (or safe) because of it;

              (2) I’ve bought health insurance on my own now for almost 20 years because its a smart thing for me to do. I plan on buying it for next x years until I die so I am not concerned with any coverage mandate. I am not less free because of the reform that resulted from Healthcare reform – I am somewhat poorer to that line item because most everyone’s rates went up. Overall I am better off economically because I found a better job with better base and bonus to counter any benefit uptick for a long time to come (or hopefully when the reform is repealed).

              (3) I don’t sell veggies – anything I grow I would plan on eating. I buy veggies from local farmers and CSA’s. I think the County Health Department requires them to have a permit of sorts – but I don’t really care because it doesn’t make me feel less free or safer.

              There are not “hundreds” of reasons to store up on food, water, first aid, etc. Its more likely a waste of disposable or investment income, space and increases the likelihood of vermin, insects and other undesirable things. First aid supplies can go bad and so long as there is sunlight I can get water in a pinch. I don’t see the logic in doing anything different – in my first 40 years there has never been a reason to need to do so – I don’t expect the next 40 to be any different.

              Those things are an erosion of my freedom only if I judge them to be such. You can certainly differ. But you cannot judge what my freedom is or is not as I perceive it.

              • Ray

                “in my first 40 years there has never been a reason to need to do so – I don’t expect the next 40 to be any different.”

                Neither did the people living in New Orleans, or the people living in Fargo, South Dakota, or I bet the people living in Christchurch.

                A loss of freedom is a loss of freedom. Just because you don’t feel a loss does not negate its loss to others.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                Utter nonsense JAC. If I lived in any of those three places (in the zone of disaster or destruction) any stored emergency supplies would have largely been useless. I assess the risk of where I live and the likelihood of an actualized threat and plan my safeguards appropriately. That does not include wasting money on supplies I’ll likely never use. If it helps understand my thinking on this – my other work hat I have to wear is for disaster recovery and business continuity operations (and inclusive of role in critical infrastructure). You can overbuy insurance JAC. All you really gain is a little more peace of mind I suppose.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Ray, Good Day Sir!

                Just a question. What if the disaster has no recovery ops (natural) and business is closed due to the dollar being worthless? I ask only because I have seen a line drawn on political leanings, rather than actual economic factors that “may” lead to the total devaluation of the dollar. My fear here, is that is a political leaning subject.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                and JAC – why should I concern myself if others perceive a loss in freedom because the farmer they buy veggies from has to have a piece of government paper that says the food is safe?

  39. Makes you go hmmmm.

    Don’t you wonder how and when this adm. decide to comment on some of the uprisings around the world? Remember those brutal protests in Iran 2 years ago that he remained mum on? Sides with “people” (Muslim bro hood?) against Mubarek. Goes against state governments, ie AZ and WI, and now has been mum once again (until yesterday) against brutal attacks against the people of Libya.

    Does this explain more?

    Obama’s mystery links to Gadhafi uncovered
    Prez fails to call for dictator’s removal despite reports of attacks on citizens

    Read more: Obama’s mystery links to Gadhafi uncovered

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      @Kathy – “mum on Iran”?

      Not likely…..

      • Ray Hawkins says:


        • Ray Hawkins says:


          • Ray Hawkins says:

            It was relatively easy to find numerous statements and speeches he made on the situation in Iran as it were in 2009 – he certainly was not mum – perhaps we can discuss what he said?

            I think his actions at the time were appropriate. Were the elections in Iran rigged? Almost certainly they were. Was there a more aggressive response we should have taken? I don’t think so.

            Curious what others would state.


    • Ray Hawkins says:

      As for Libya – there are reports that there are still hundreds / thousands of Americans and other foreign nationals desperately trying to flee the Libya. Calling publicly for Gadhafi to leave before those people have a chance to escape what be idiotic in my opinion – you’d merely invite Gadhafi to treat them as he is treating his own people.

      • Ray, I agree with him being lowkey on Libya is in everyone’s beast interests. But I think the same on Egypt.

        Juxtapose Obama’s statements toward our allies with his reaction to the genuine uprising that occurred last year in Iran.
        Tunisia: “Reform or be overthrown.”
        Egypt: “an orderly transition … must begin now.”

        Iran: “It is not productive … to be seen as meddling.” Meanwhile, candidate Obama claimed that the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezb’allah have “legitimate claims,” and we all remember his mindless counterterrorism czar, John Brennan, reaching out to “moderate” Hezb’allah members last spring. Hezb’allah moderates?

        The seeming inconsistency is astonishing. Unfortunately, there is a consistency. Obama uniformly sides with our enemies but rarely, if ever, with our friends and allies. His administration is packed with far-left radicals and vicious anti-Semites. And therein lies the rub, because what we are witnessing in reality is this president’s un-American, anti-American, treasonous ideology in full play.

        Perhaps this is the real reason for Bill Ayers’s, Bernardine Dohrn’s, Code Pink’s Medea Benjamin’s and Jody Evans’s trips to Egypt in 2009. Following those trips, these same people made multiple visits to the White House.

        Obama’s breathlessly arrogant answer? Not the same Ayers, Dohrn, Benjamin, and Evans. Sure.

        A few years back, I cited a quote by Lynn Stewart, the National Lawyers Guild attorney jailed for helping blind sheikh Omar Adel Raman foment terror from his New York jail cell. One might think that atheistic radical leftists would be foursquare against a political movement that tramples women’s rights, murders homosexuals, and enforces strict theocratic mandates. No such luck, Stewart said:

        They [radical Islamic movements] are basically forces of national liberation. And I think that we, as persons who are committed to the liberation of oppressed people, should fasten on the need for self-determination. … My own sense is that, were the Islamists to be empowered, there would be movements within their own countries … to liberate.

        ” … movements within their own countries … to liberate.” Given recent developments, Stewart’s statement was prescient. But I think it had a special meaning. Because when movement leftists like Stewart talk about “liberation,” they are really talking about communism.

        It has been my longstanding assertion that Muslim terrorism is simply a false flag operation, managed in the background by our main enemies, Russia and Red China. Almost since the beginning, Muslim terrorist organizations have been supported and nurtured by the Soviet Union or its Middle Eastern surrogates.

        Yasser Arafat’s PLO is a prime example. Created by the KGB, the PLO was always about providing a Soviet counterweight to Israel in the Middle East. They were uninterested in the Palestinian cause, and they said so! Alexander Litvinenko, the KGB defector poisoned by Polonium 210 in what was assumed to be a KGB hit, claimed in his book, Allegations, that al-Qaeda’s number two man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, was a Soviet agent. And while today Hezb’allah is the de facto ruler of Lebanon, the real power is Ba’athist Syria.

        David Horowitz wrote of the alliance between leftists and Muslim terrorists in his seminal book: Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left. He describes in detail how the left and Muslim radicals work together to achieve their mutual ends: the destruction of America.

        It is incomprehensible that President Obama does not recognize the strategic significance of what is happening, and if he does, then his support of Egypt’s sham “democracy movement” is a naked betrayal of our Middle Eastern allies and, by extension, our own country.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          @LOI – I would scarcely place a Libya and Egypt in the same bucket – there are too many differences in what happened and is happening for anyone to assert that a one-size-fits-all foreign policy is the way to go. Even the reports now are not so much calling this a quasi-pro-democracy movement in Libya as much as outright civil war. The same could not be said of what happened and, very importantly, continues to happen in Egypt.

          I am sure he recognizes the strategic significance of what is happening. But he may be neutered from doing much of anything other than working with speech writers on what is the right thing to say and working through the State Department with a lukewarm “hey folks, don’t F this up too too badly”.

          I don’t think we’re at a point to conclude much of anything on Egypt. Mubarek was merely a symbol of something – that something – the military – is still in place. All the protests and what-not will be empty if another Mubarek is elevated and they make only slight changes to their Constitution.

          The real variable here will be how domestic anger home here boils up once oil prices fly through the roof. Then we’ll realize how 20-30 years of crappy foreign and domestic policy have left us holding the bag when it comes to energy dependence. Even if the turmoil “over there” results in a bunch warm and fuzzy democracies – we’ll still feel that pain at the pump because of how even the notion of imbalance sends prices to the sky. I head the Saudis are going to be kindler gentler in opening up benefits to their citizenry – guess who is going to pay for that? You and I and everyone else here.

          Pardon my language…..but

          We’re so fucking dumb sometimes that its easy to lose hope we can still “fix it”.

          • Ray,

            “I would scarcely place a Libya and Egypt in the same bucket” – OK, but what about Iran & Libya? Both are hostile to the US. Are we the “Torch of Freedom”? Do we not need to champion democracy to the whole world?

            I still think Egypt should be considered as well. Israel & S.A.
            both advised us to be quiet and Obama ignored them. Sorry Ray, but he has to be wrong on one of these, unless you think it’s still Bush?

            “I am sure he recognizes the strategic significance of what is happening. But he may be neutered from doing much of anything other than working with speech writers on what is the right thing to say and working through the State Department with a lukewarm “hey folks, don’t F this up too too badly”. ”

            Ray, he is the PRESIDENT. They work for him. They report and advise, but he gets the credit or blame. He decides our foreign policy by accepting their recommendations, or directing them as to his wishes. I can agree with you that he may be right on his actions. At this point it’s only opinion
            on Iran, Egypt and the rest of them. Only history will give us part of that answer.

            IMO, he screwed up on Egypt. Would rather he had acted as he did on Iran on all this Mid East mess. Keep quiet, ask for peaceful resolutions. Keep us the hell out of it.

            • Ray Hawkins says:


              “Champion” is a real smushy word. Exactly what is that supposed to mean? Torches burn people – so often less is more when we need to encourage “things” to happen.

              I’m not sure why you drug Bush into this – what exactly does he have to do with? And why does Obama “need to be wrong” on one of these? Let’s let the games wrap up before we play Monday Morning QB perhaps? My position is I agree with what he has done thus far – there really isn’t a reason to think otherwise.

              I’d also offer that we only know pieces of what diplomacy is going on behind the scenes – to conclude based on mostly assumptions is a tough angle for either of us.

              Just remember – we haven’t shed any American blood on Egypt or Libya (hopefully we never do). So to date – we are somewhat still “the hell out of it”.

              I’ll offer that I am amused that you think Obama should keep quiet and Kathy is saying that Obama should be saying/doing more. Thought you two usually agreed on things……

              • Didn’t say he should be doing more at all Ray. Just questioned his motives on when he decides to speak up and when he doesn’t and which “side” he decides to take.

          • The Stimulus, Not Oil Prices, Is Hammering Consumers

            By John Lott

            Published February 23, 2011

            | FoxNews

            U.S. crude oil prices soared by 8.5 percent Tuesday, stunning financial markets. The financial media fretted that the oil price shock from the Middle East turmoil would slow or stop the fragile economic recovery. Crude oil prices soared even though gas prices at the pump are already the highest in any February since 1990. The reaction was swift, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average falling more than 178 points (1.4 percent) and NASDAQ and S&P 500 both also falling by more than 2 percent. This morning, with Libya teetering on the brink of civil war, gas prices continued rising.

            While the media clearly and instantly understands the detrimental impact that higher oil prices have on the economy, the impact is really no different than President Obama’s stimulus or his deluge of new government regulations, from the EPA to health care to financial markets.

            Read more:

  40. Ray Hawkins says:

    Heads up to former military folk here – is this story b.s. or is this something we should perk our ears up to?

    Another Runaway General: Army Deploys Psy-Ops on U.S. Senators

    “The U.S. Army illegally ordered a team of soldiers specializing in “psychological operations” to manipulate visiting American senators into providing more troops and funding for the war, Rolling Stone has learned – and when an officer tried to stop the operation, he was railroaded by military investigators.

    The Runaway General: The Rolling Stone Profile of Stanley McChrystal That Changed History

    The orders came from the command of Lt. Gen. William Caldwell, a three-star general in charge of training Afghan troops – the linchpin of U.S. strategy in the war. Over a four-month period last year, a military cell devoted to what is known as “information operations” at Camp Eggers in Kabul was repeatedly pressured to target visiting senators and other VIPs who met with Caldwell. When the unit resisted the order, arguing that it violated U.S. laws prohibiting the use of propaganda against American citizens, it was subjected to a campaign of retaliation.

    “My job in psy-ops is to play with people’s heads, to get the enemy to behave the way we want them to behave,” says Lt. Colonel Michael Holmes, the leader of the IO unit, who received an official reprimand after bucking orders. “I’m prohibited from doing that to our own people. When you ask me to try to use these skills on senators and congressman, you’re crossing a line.”

    King David’s War: How Gen. Petraeus Is Doubling Down on a Failed Strategy

    The list of targeted visitors was long, according to interviews with members of the IO team and internal documents obtained by Rolling Stone. Those singled out in the campaign included senators John McCain, Joe Lieberman, Jack Reed, Al Franken and Carl Levin; Rep. Steve Israel of the House Appropriations Committee; Adm. Mike Mullen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; the Czech ambassador to Afghanistan; the German interior minister, and a host of influential think-tank analysts.

    The incident offers an indication of just how desperate the U.S. command in Afghanistan is to spin American civilian leaders into supporting an increasingly unpopular war. According to the Defense Department’s own definition, psy-ops – the use of propaganda and psychological tactics to influence emotions and behaviors – are supposed to be used exclusively on “hostile foreign groups.” Federal law forbids the military from practicing psy-ops on Americans, and each defense authorization bill comes with a “propaganda rider” that also prohibits such manipulation. “Everyone in the psy-ops, intel, and IO community knows you’re not supposed to target Americans,” says a veteran member of another psy-ops team who has run operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. “It’s what you learn on day one.”

    Read more here:

    • Ray

      If this is actually true then there is going to be some heads rolling.

      I could be wrong but I think there is MUCH MORE to this story than is being reported so far. And I am not sure the efforts used to persuade the dignitaries are actually phsy-ops.

      I hope there is much more digging done on this to find the truth.

    • Bottom Line says:

      Ray, JAC,

      We’ve(Ray and I) talked about this sort of thing before. Knowing what I know …OF COURSE it’s real. It’s just the tip of the iceberg.

      With respect to psy-ops, most people have absolutely no idea what the powers to be are capable of and/or what they’re actually doing behind the scenes.

      I’ve lived it, researched it, and shared information with others that share similar experiences.

      Perhaps I’ll write an article about it one day. I am reluctant to do so because just defining what psy-ops actually is and what it entails is one of those things that requires a lengthy and elaborate explanation. There’s really no way around it being a somewhat lengthy article. Even the condensed version would be lengthy. It might even end up turning out to be a two or more part series.

      It’d be a lot of typing and reference digging, and frankly, I’m not sure too many people even care.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        I’d love to read what you write BL – I am fascinated by the topic but have no idea what is considered authoritative and factual versus b.s.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Ray, I touched on this subject last year. Remember, I’m your favorite “conspiracy theorist”. 🙂 Maybe it’s not a theory!

          • Bottom Line says:

            You try to enlighten others, and your a conspiracy theorist. I tell my story with the same intent, and I’m delusional, paranoid, psychotic, etc…

            Rolling Stone Magazine and joint chiefs talk about it and all of a sudden, it’s really happening. Good.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Yep, Strange how that works out. I went back and read the article on mind manipulation the we worked on together. Funny, we were right!

        • Bottom Line says:


          You and others are obviously interested. I guess I will write an article at some point. I’m not sure whether I can provide you with “proof” as I can only speak from my experiences, what research I’ve done, and what I’ve discovered.

          If anything, I can point you in the right direction.

      • BL- mentioning too long to write an article reminds me of an idea that I’ve thought about before for SUFA.

        Webinars/Conference calls!

        Like your topic here – I’d love to learn more – you could lead us in a little session on it “LIVE”.


        • Bottom Line says:


          I think that’s an excellent idea!

          It could be used for general chat, further discussion of topics, and/or articles done lecture/question/answer type of format.

          At the moment, I’m sitting in a parking lot hijacking someone’s wireless signal. My ISP is currently non-existent and the signals I get from my garage(man-cave) are terribly unreliable.

          Until I get another ISP, a conference call would be rather convenient.

      • Bottom Line, General Petraeus took it seriously enough to order an investigation:,0,947412.story

        I would like to know more. please & thankyou

        • Bottom Line says:

          CSM – “Bottom Line, General Petraeus took it seriously enough to order an investigation: ”

          BL – That’s awesome. It needs to come out in the open as there is a lot of wide-spread abuse of psy-ops programs happening. An investigation would certainly help to do as such. Right on, General!

          CSM – ” I would like to know more. please & thankyou ”

          BL – Just to be clear, I know virtually nothing about this particular situation with General Petraeus.

          I’m no bonified psy-ops agent or anything. Whatever I know about psy-ops derives from being on the receiving end of it, a lot of research, and exchange of info from others like me.

          I do know a thing or two about it though. Being forced to play the game is being forced to know how it is played, …and how it is won.

          Knowing how it works renders it useless.

          • I like “Knowing how it works renders it useless.” Best offense and all that. This will be interesting, I’m looking forward to it. c

  41. Federal government can bribe states-tell me something I didn’t know. States giving away their power to the detriment of it’s citizens and our country as a whole.
    And even if we get this declared unconstitutional-nationalized health care wouldn’t be or the Fed can just get the states to do it. GRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!

    A Minute With ™…
    David Hyman, expert on health law
    2/6/2011 8:00 am

    A second federal judge has declared the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act unconstitutional, ruling that people can’t be required to buy health insurance. David A. Hyman, a professor of law and of medicine at Illinois, is one of the nation’s top health law scholars. He spoke with News Bureau reporter Phil Ciciora about the ongoing legal troubles facing President Obama’s signature piece of legislation, and what’s likely to happen next.
    What does the latest court ruling mean for the health care reform law? In the interest of settling the constitutionality of the law once and for all, should the parties seek an expedited review by the Supreme Court?

    image of professor david hymanAs of right now, two district courts have upheld the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in its entirety. One district court in Virginia has struck down just the individual mandate, and another in Florida has issued a declaratory judgment that the entire statute is unconstitutional. It concluded the individual mandate was unconstitutional, and not separable from the rest of the law.

    Although it is possible that all of these cases will be conclusively resolved by the various intermediate courts of appeals, it now seems likely that the Supreme Court will have to sort out the issue.

    As far as timing, the state of Virginia, which was the plaintiff in the case where the district court struck down just the individual mandate, has indicated that it wants immediate review, but so far the Department of Justice has opposed doing so. It is possible that the DOJ will seek a stay of (U.S. District) Judge (Roger) Vinson’s ruling in the Florida case, in order to keep implementation on track.
    Critics of Vinson’s ruling have said that it was based more on a desire to restrain federal overreaching than in commerce clause precedents. They also note that many of America’s landmark governing achievements – Social Security, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal minimum wage – were challenged in lower courts before being upheld by the Supreme Court. Are they right? If this case were to reach the Supreme Court, what do you foresee happening?

    The Constitution limits the federal government to specific enumerated powers. Congress relied on the commerce clause, which allows the federal government to regulate commerce “among the several states.” Most law professors were confident that this challenge to the health care reform act would go absolutely nowhere, since federal courts had historically upheld legislation regulating economic activity under the commerce clause. But the plaintiffs creatively cast the act as regulating inactivity, and argued that if the government could regulate inactivity, it could regulate everything, which would be inconsistent with the limitation of the federal government to specific enumerated powers.

    Everything about health reform has been unpredictable, so the safest thing is to predict more of the same. The betting right now is that it would be a 5-4 decision, with Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy casting the deciding vote. But Kennedy has been a swing justice, so it is hard to predict what he might do.

    Ironically, if the act had been structured like Medicare, the constitutional challenge would be a non-starter, since there was clear precedent authorizing the use of the taxing power to enact such legislation. But there was never the political will or the votes to try to do anything like that.
    In the two rulings that have declared the law unconstitutional, the linchpin of the ruling has been the constitutionality of the individual mandate. How is the constitutionality of the individual mandate any different from, say, the constitutionality of all drivers mandated to purchase some form of auto insurance?

    Under the Constitution, the federal government is limited to specific enumerated powers, while the states have more sweeping authority. So, states can require people to do things that the federal government can’t. That’s why when states impose a mandate to purchase auto insurance – or when, for example, Massachusetts imposes a mandate to purchase health insurance – it doesn’t create any constitutional problems.

    The auto insurance example raises some other interesting points. First, the auto insurance mandate requires drivers to purchase coverage. If you don’t drive, you don’t have to purchase coverage. You don’t have a similar option with the health insurance mandate, which applies to all citizens.

    Second, the auto insurance mandate requires drivers to purchase liability coverage, which protects other people. The health insurance individual mandate is to purchase coverage for yourself.

    Third, the best available evidence indicates lots of drivers don’t purchase auto insurance – even though it is cheaper, and the sanctions for noncompliance are far higher than for health insurance. That doesn’t bode well for the effectiveness of the health insurance mandate as it is currently framed.

    The federal government can also “bribe” states to get them to do what it wants, even though it lacks the power to do something directly. So, the reason why the minimum drinking age in all 50 states is 21 years old is not because the states all independently decided that was the right number.

    It was because Congress passed a law that withheld a portion of federal highway funding to any state that failed to enact a minimum drinking age of 21. The Supreme Court upheld that strategy in 1987 – and the money at stake was large enough that the states all fell into line.

    So, even if the individual mandate is ultimately held to be unconstitutional, the federal government could conceivably use the same approach to get all 50 states to enact a health insurance mandate.

  42. SUFA

    Heads up everybody. Don’t know if this is going to reach all of you but be aware.

    Winds started last night, gusts in the 40+ range and colder temps.

    Wind still blowing hard, steady at about 25-30 with gusts of 40+. AND the temp has dropped 12 degrees in the past 3 hours. From 22 just before sunup to 10 right now.

    Snow is starting to drift.

    If this hits the open prairie and flat lands you may be stranded for a while.

  43. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    I believe that at least in some ways this relates to today’s topic. Also, it is just a VERY important read. I am not sure whether to laugh or cry when I read the parts about division by zero….

    • “not sure whether to laugh or cry”
      Laugh or better, sing.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        For some reason, I don’t get to see these from work, so I will have to check it out when I get home.

        Another appropriate song might be “When the shit hits the fan” by the Circle Jerks. Written back in the early 1980s, but oh so appropriate today!

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      By the way, it looks like some powerful interests are driving the price of gold and silver down today, just as described in the article I linked.

      I would strongly suggest using this as a buying opportunity if you can. Silver may break below $32 tomorrow morning, and gold may break below $1400 as well. I don’t think that the pullback will last long though, so if you can, pounce on it tomorrow if my prediction holds true 🙂

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Hi Peter, How high do you see gold and silver going?

        • Gman,

          Do not measure the price at all – you will not get rich with silver and gold.

          When the “lemmings” begin buying – then it is time to sell.

          You must sell before the rest. When it is time to exchange gold ( a commodity) for money, you do not want to compete for the money – it will be at the point money becomes very scarce – so you want to be in advance of that moment.

          No worry, though, I will give such an alert.

  44. Strange that SUFA/G-Man has an article just before it’s covered by a commentator.

    February 24, 2011 01:34 PM UTC by John Stossel
    Tonight’s Show: Hollywood Gets It Wrong

    This weekend is the Oscars! As a stutterer, I’m excited that the King’s Speech is favored to win for best picture and best actor. It actually gets stuttering mostly right. Hollywood gets so much else wrong.

    For example: The movie makers obsess about the Oscars because movies that win make more money. Oscar nominees re-release their movie around Oscar season. They are smart capitalists. So, why then, are they so clueless about capitalism!? And hostile to capitalism?! This ticks me off.

    Movie villains used to be Indians, but then that became politically incorrect. Nazis were the villains after World War II, then Russians, then aliens and mobsters. Briefly Arabs were villains, but then that became politically incorrect. Today, it seems like most of the rapacious villains are businessmen.

    On my FBN show tonight, radio host Michael Medved talks about the ways in which Hollywood gets capitalism wrong.

    Famed director Oliver Stone is one of the biggest offenders. His Wall Street movies portray “greed” as evil, and he clearly does not get economics. In the first Wall Street, villain Gordon Gekko says business is “a zero sum game — somebody wins, somebody loses. Money itself isn’t lost or made; it’s simply transferred from one perception to another.”

    That’s just wrong. It’s a commonly repeated myth: “when the rich get richer, the poor get poorer.” But if you think of wealth as a pie, the rich aren’t taking more slices from the poor. The rich bake new pies every day. That’s how they get rich. Everyone gets richer when the rich get richer.

    Another big offender is director James Cameron. In the Alien series, it’s a greedy mega-corporation that seeks to capture the aliens. In Titanic, it’s a greedy businessman who pressures the captain to go faster despite the icebergs. Most recently, in Avatar, it’s an evil mining corporation that wants to destroy the natural habitat of the noble savages.

    However, at least there is one movie that gets capitalism right. It will come out this spring. I’ll tell you about it tonight. FBN at 9pm & midnight EST.

    Read more:

  45. BF

    I imagine you are busy with family, work, and physical therapy. But I just wanted to say Hi and I hope you are doing well.

    • V.H.


      Had a doctor review: good and bad. I’m getting better at stretching straight, but progress in bending has not been so good.

      • Takes time, persistence, and unfortunately “patience”-something I have less of the older I get. Hang in there 🙂

  46. A woman from Los Angeles , CA who was a tree hugger, a Democrat, and an anti-hunter, purchased a piece of timberland near Colville , WA . There was a large tree on one of the highest points in the tract. She wanted a good view of
    the natural splendor of her land so she started to climb the big tree. As she neared the top she encountered a spotted owl that attacked her. In her haste to scape, the woman slid down the tree to the ground and got many splinters in her

    In considerable pain, she hurried to Mt. Carmel ER to see a doctor. She told him she was an environmentalist, a democrat, and an anti-hunter and how she came to get all the splinters. The doctor listened to her story with great patience and then told her to go wait in the examining room and he would see if he could help her.

    She sat and waited three hours before the doctor reappeared. The angry woman demanded, “What took you so long?” He smiled and then told her, “Well, I had
    to get permits from the Environmental Protection Agency , the Forest Service , and the Bureau of Land Management before I could remove old-growth timber from a recreational area. I’m sorry, but due to Obama Care, they turned me down.”


    • The Rev. Ira E. Carney, pastor of the Red Oak Christian Church, published the following write-up by a South Carolina editor of a wedding in his regular church bulletin Sunday: “Mr. Robert Chetway and Miss Alice Broadkin were married at noon Monday at the home of the bride’s parents, Mr. and Mrs. P. D. Broadkin. The Rev. M. L. Gassoway officiating. The groom is a popular young bum who hasn’t done a lick of work since he got shipped in the middle of his junior year in college. He manages to dress well and keep a supply of spending money because his dad is a soft-hearted old fool who takes up his bad checks instead of letting him go to jail where he belongs. The bride is a skinny, fast little idiot, who had been kissed and handled by every boy in the city since she was 12. She paints like a Sioux Indian, sucks cigarettes in secret and drinks mean corn whiskey when she is out joy riding in her dad’s car at night. She doesn’t know how to cook, sew or keep house.

      The house was newly plastered for the wedding and the exterior newly painted, thus appropriately carrying out the decorative scheme, for the groom was newly plastered also and the bride newly painted. The groom wore a rented dinner suit over athletic underwear of imitation silk. His pants were held up by pale green suspenders. His number eight patent shoes matched his state of tightness and harmonized nicely with the axle grease polish of his hair. In addition to his jag, he carries a pocket knife, a bunch of keys, a dun for the ring, and his usual look of imbecility. The bride wore some kind of a white thing that left most of her legs sticking out at one end, and her bony upper end sticking out of the other. The young couple will make their home with the bride’s parents—which means that they will sponge on the old man until he dies and then she will take in washings.

      Postscript: This may be the last issue of my paper, but my life ambition has been to write up one wedding and tell the unvarnished truth. Now that it is done, death can have no sting.”

  47. Ray Hawkins says:

    Hey Kathy – here is an invite email from that I received today…..

    Dear MoveOn member,
    Whatever you’ve got planned for Saturday afternoon, reschedule it.

    Teachers, nurses, firefighters, students, police officers and others protesting in Wisconsin have occupied the Capitol building and streets of Madison for the past nine days.

    On Saturday at noon, their protest is going national. In cities across the nation, including every state capital, we’ll come together to stand in solidarity with the people of Wisconsin.

    This time the Republicans have gone too far in their attempts to bust unions, slash state budgets, and give tax breaks to their wealthy friends.

    So on Saturday we’ll stand up to say that we’re sick of the attacks on workers’ rights. That we’re sick of an economy that showers corporate executives with bonuses while squeezing middle-class families. That we still believe in the American Dream. And that we’re willing to fight for it.

    Can you make it to the rally in Philadelphia?

    Yes, I’ll be there.

    No, I can’t make it.

    We’re putting everything we’ve got into one massive display of solidarity nationwide. We’ll all show up wearing Wisconsin Badger colors: red and white. And if we can get huge crowds across the nation, it’ll send a clear message that progressives are fired up and ready to go.

    Until this week, Republicans have dominated the debate over the economy—with Washington arguing about which vital programs to slash, instead of how to create jobs and help the middle class. Now the Republicans are threatening to shut down the government next week in order to force Democrats to agree to devastating cuts to NPR, the EPA, food aid to hungry kids, clean energy research, AmeriCorps and more.

    But thanks to the folks braving the cold in Wisconsin, that could all change. This is an opening to call out the Republican game plan for what it is: a brazen effort to use a wrecked economy as an excuse to reward the rich and powerful while destroying 50 years of democratic progress.

    That’s why we’ve come together with a huge coalition of progressive organizations—from the Netroots to the labor movement, environmental groups to community organizations—to show our strength and make sure the folks in Wisconsin know that millions of people across the country are standing with them.

    Will you join us Saturday in Philadelphia so we have a huge crowd? Click here to RSVP:

    Thanks for all you do.

    –Daniel, Robin, Amy, Tate, and the rest of the team

    Want to support our work? We’re entirely funded by our 5 million members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. Chip in here.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      I can certainly see the call for violence in this message.


      • Ray,

        Be careful of the company you keep.

        And you might look for information from the other side. Find a smaller, less intimidating person that has a sigh against the unions. Watch how they are treated. I hope all are as peaceful as you. Any violence will be forever linked to Obama.

      • Threats of Violence Rock Wisconsin Union Protests

        Mark Whittington – Sat Feb 19, 12:58 pm

        The struggle over a budget repair bill in Wisconsin took an ominous turn Friday night as the Wisconsin State Assembly was forced to adjourn due to security concerns. Meanwhile fears for the safety of Gov. Scott Walker have been expressed.

        As the Wisconsin State Assembly engaged in a heated debate on the budget bill that would strip state employees of much of their collective bargaining power and force them to contribute more to their pension plans and health care insurance, throngs of angry demonstrators could be heard chanting louder and louder just outside the chamber, according to Wispolitics. com.

        Finally, Walker advised Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald that

        the physical safety of the members of the assembly could no longer be guaranteed. There had been reports of death threats against Wisconsin lawmakers throughout the week.

        Fitzgerald decided to adjourn the session, vowing to reconvene on Tuesday, after the Presidents’ Day Weekend. Fitzgerald had to be escorted from the chamber by sheriff’s deputies.

        Meanwhile, the Cyber News Service is reporting that concerns are being expressed about the physical safety of

        Walker, who has been the subject of death threats and

        has been the subject of incendiary signs carried by the protesters comparing him to Hitler and Hosni Mubarak. Other signs have shown Walker’s face with the cross hairs of a rifle sight super imposed on it.

        Political observers remember the controversy surrounding a map put out by Sarah Palin’s political action committee showing cross hairs over various states, representing Democratic politicians who had been targeted for defeat in 2010. The map has been the subject of heated arguments over the civility of political discourse following the shooting in Tucson, Ariz., that killed six and severely wounded Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, one of the politicians so targeted.
        [ For complete coverage of politics and policy, go to Yahoo! Politics ]

        However the same people who excoriated Sarah Palin seem to have become oddly silent when similar graphics are used against a sitting governor. What was considered horrible for Palin and the tea party seems to be acceptable for union activists.

        The threats of violence seem to raise a question. Have the protests in Wisconsin morphed into something more serious, an actual insurrection that seeks to overturn the will of the majority of the people of Wisconsin through threats and intimidation? And why are not only outside agitators, including the President of the United States, supporting an uprising that seems to be turning more and more ugly?

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          @LOI – so let me get this straight……..Tea Party folks, common folks, average Joe’s that hijacked town halls to protest Health Care reform are good solid patriotic Americans


          Anyone protesting the revocation of collective bargaining rights are communist violent union thugs?

          Not buying it. Let’s check in on Saturday night to see how much violence there was….fair?

          • Ray,

            Check back on TeaParty protests. No arrests. They were vocal, but not violent. Contrast that with the union protest, where violence and intimidation is a common practice. Shouting down anyone who does not agree with you is not what freedom of speech is supposed to be about.

            “Check in on Saturday night to see how much violence there was….fair?” Agreed. May be Sunday or Monday, but lets do take a hard look at how they protest, and see if it meets our personal standards. How would we feel if our wives and children were present? A great learning experience of democracy in action or potential violence too high to consider putting them at risk?

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              @LOI – hey bud – fair time to check in on this?

              I saw one video from Breitbart I think that showed a shove (x2) between a union dude and a counter-protester. Other than that – I don’t think there was much “violence” was there? The only thing of note was how little of the whole “event” was carried by the supposed Left MSM.


    • MoveOn rally song!

  48. During a White House address on Wednesday, President Barack Obama alongside Secretary of State Hillary Clinton denounced the violence in Libya as “outrageous” and “unacceptable.” But what does that mean?

    According to “Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace, Obama’s words are ringing hollow and he advised the president to change his tone unless he was going to back up those words with actions. In an appearance on the Fox Business Network’s “Imus in the Morning” program, Wallace explained that Obama had to be measured in his response, but the use of the word “unacceptable” was meaningless if he is going to accept Muammar Qaddafi’s actions.

    “Well, all hell is breaking loose and I just want to say one thing about President Obama and I understand that it’s awfully hard to calibrate this and when you’ve got what certainly seems to be a madman in charge of the country, you don’t want to do something to set him off and cause him to do something else crazy and barbaric,” Wallace said. “But one of the things, words that the president or speech writers ought to take out of this lexicon is ‘unacceptable.’ Yesterday, he said the events in Libya are unacceptable. He’s going to accept them. What does unacceptable mean? Unacceptable would mean I’m not going to accept it, but he’s not going to do anything about it. It’s like what he said about Korea or Iran, it’s unacceptable.”

    According to Wallace – without action, it paints the president in an unflattering light.

    “It makes you look impotent,” Wallace said.

    Read more:

  49. Krauthammer warns
    ‘all hell is breaking loose’ if major unrest occurs in Saudi Arabia on March 11
    By Jeff Poor – The Daily Caller | Published: 10:38 AM 02/24/2011

    Here’s something Americans should certainly keep their eyes on — the potential for unrest in Saudi Arabia, which the United States imports more oil from than any other country outside of North America.

    Fox News Channel contributor Charles Krauthammer warned of that potential on Wednesday night’s “Special Report Online,” aired on, but said that a plot to overthrow the Saudi government could be foiled by the Saudis’ intelligence apparatus.

    “The big one is March 11,” Krauthammer said. “There’s a Facebook call in Saudi Arabia for a day of rage all over Saudi Arabia on March 11. Now, the Saudis have really good intelligence. They are tough. They’re ruthless and they’re effective. There isn’t a lot of anti-government activity in Saudi Arabia.”

    If it isn’t foiled, though, Krauthammer said such unrest could spell dire consequences for the world economy and would warrant intervention.

    “However, in the eastern provinces, which are Shiite – if you get major eruptions on March 11, all hell is breaking loose,” he continued. “Saudi Arabia is the prize. It’s the treasure. I mean, it’s the gold at the end of the rainbow. It’s everything for the world economy. And then you have to think of Western intervention – if something like that happens.”

    “But the potential is still there, based on the proximity of Bahrain to Saudi Arabia with its Shiite and pro-Iranian elements. And if Saudi oil falls under the control of a pro-Iranian regime, it could spell curtains for the world as we know it.”

    “And remember, the Shiites in Bahrain, which is sort of a proxy for Saudi Arabia and Iraq, are pro-Iranian,” he said. “There are pro-Iranians among them. If Iran essentially gets proxy control of Saudi oil, the whole world has changed.”

    “So I think the one we really — I mean there are humanitarian concerns in Libya that are significant,” he continued. “There are also strategic concerns, but there’s nothing compared to Saudi Arabia and it’ll be interesting. I’m not sure anything will happen on March 11, but if something does, we got a whole new world we’re living in.”

    Read more:

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I would have to agree with this article. If Saudi goes down, or there is stoppage of oil exports, we could see some very high gas prices.

  50. Speaking of power grabs-The President is wrong and ALL the members of Congress and the Supreme Court need to start calling him on it. What ever their views on what the Constitution means-I’m assuming that we can all agree that there is a separation of powers in the Federal government.

    Obama Completes His Trifecta
    By Richard N. Weltz
    With a bold political announcement, President Barack Obama has completed the trifecta — de facto coups which bring into his White House the powers and functions of the other two branches, as outlined in our Constitution.

    That document assigns the legislative function to Congress, but the Executive Branch blithely and routinely co-opts that power by run-arounds and choosing to enforce or not enforce duly passed laws of the Legislature. Notable examples in the scant couple of years The One has been in office include: refusal to enforce voting laws against intimidation at the polls in Chicago, efforts to use the regulatory functions of the EPA to circumvent the specific legislation of Congress to ban cap-and-trade, refusal to enforce immigration laws, and attempts by the FCC to regulate matters banned from its jurisdiction by law.

    We need not even mention the undemocratic parliamentary tactics and outright bribery used by Obama and his allies to ram through the unpopular and clearly unconstitutional ObamaCare bill — without it even having been read by most Congress members.

    On the judiciary side, we witness the executive ignoring a Federal Court ruling on ObamaCare’s unconstitutionality, the refusal — to the point where an order of compliance had to be issued from the bench — to refrain from imposing an illegal moratorium on oil drilling; and, now the clearest and most blatant power grab of all. Obama has arrogated to himself, in the matter of DOMA, the power to declare that law unconstitutional and order his Justice Department not to contest lawsuits challenging it.

    In the meantime, while usurping and/or undercutting the legitimate powers and functions of the other two branches, in the three areas for which the Executive does have power and responsibility — faithfully executing the laws, conducting foreign policy, and commanding the armed forces — this megalomaniacal narcissist has proven a spectacular failure.

    What have we allowed to happen to the American concept of separation of powers? Are we abandoning this unique and hallowed concept for a tinpot dictatorship dressed up in a fancy suit and fancy oratory? Where and how do we stop this train to ruination?

  51. EEEEK!!

    Just heard from my daughter in Hawaii. She was sitting in class and an earthquake just rocked the campus. My son-in-law said their whole house shook!…Waiting for updates

  52. JAC-Follow Up

    The ABA Does Damage Control
    Pamela Geller
    Tuesday, in an article called The ABA’s Jihad in The American Thinker, I exposed the Islamic supremacism taking root at the American Bar Association, breaking the story of the ABA’s support for Sharia law. I revealed the notice, circulated among ABA members, of an organized ABA campaign to oppose the anti-Sharia legislation that has been introduced in 14 state legislatures. Then on Wednesday the ABA issued a statement in response to my article, claiming that “the American Bar Association has taken no action in support of, or in opposition to, judges considering Islamic law or Sharia.”

    How dishonest and disingenuous.
    The ABA statement said that the organization has “nearly 400,000 members, many of whom volunteer with any of the ABA’s 2,200 entities. One of those 2,200 entities is the Section on International Law, which has elected to assemble a taskforce of several individuals to examine this issue.” The statement makes it sound as if this examination is completely neutral: “These individuals are examining whether the proposed changes to the law impact important constitutional questions. They are also considering implications for international commerce.”

    Above all, the ABA claims that this taskforce has nothing to do with the organization itself: “The actions of a few interested members within one section are not and cannot be interpreted to be those of the entire American Bar Association. Claims to the contrary are erroneous.”

    This is spin and damage control. In my Tuesday article I quoted the Section on International Law stating that the ABA’s Executive Counsel “has organized a Task Force to review the legislation of 14 states — Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming — in which anti-Sharia legislation has been introduced.”

    There was no way this Task Force could be understood as neutral. Clearly it was dedicated to working against anti-Sharia legal initiatives. The Section on International Law document said: “The Section’s Executive Counsel [sic] has organized a Task Force to review the legislation of 14 states — Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming – in which anti-Sharia legislation has been introduced. The goal of the Task Force is to have a Report and Recommendation against such legislation as well as an informal set of ‘talking points’ that local opponents of these initiatives could use to make their case in each of these states.”

    This should incite justifiable public outrage, and actually increase support for and awareness of the legislation among the grassroots electorate.

    A source knowledgeable about the ABA has also informed me that the organization’s Middle East law committee recently began a lobbying campaign, which the ABA’s international law chair endorsed. It was a political act, not a neutral study. This source sent me ABA policy guidelines that make it clear that policies that are formulated by small committees or “entities” can and do become official ABA policy under certain circumstances, and those circumstances are present in the case of this pro-Sharia Task Force.

    This puts the ABA on the spot: either its policy mechanism on Middle East law has been taken over by Middle East-based lawyer(s) with Islamic supremacist sympathies, or the Middle East law committee does represent the ABA’s actual positions.

    Further, is there any ABA group or task force assigned to helping those who oppose Sharia to craft legislation to ban it? No. There is only an initiative to oppose those fighting the Sharia.

    Particularly troubling is the non-democratic way in which the ABA made the decision to oppose the anti-Sharia initiatives of various states. A tiny minority of the ABA’s total membership steers its policies, which almost always are developed from the top down. The pro-Sharia initiative seems to have been pushed forward through what the ABA calls a “blanket approval” or even more rapid “technical comment” procedure, and seems to go beyond issuing mere statements to actively organizing lobbying to influence state legislation – a practice that is generally forbidden for tax-exempt organizations.

    All this makes it obvious that the ABA’s statement disclaiming any support for Sharia was completely false and dishonest.

    If the ABA continues to forward this deceitful rhetoric, I will expose even more information about its support for Sharia.

    There is one way the ABA could make at least partial amends now: it’s time the ABA created a task force to help those of us who are fighting the introduction of Islamic law in America.

    We’re waiting.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      The ABA is taking a hard look at the anti-Sharia legislation introduced in 14 states, as this legislation has constitutional implications. Coming out against this legislation is not anywhere near equivalent to coming out in support of Sharia law being introduced into the US.

      This is complete and utter BS.

      Actually, the whole notion of Sharia law being introduced in the US is a complete and utter BS claim.

      • Buck

        I agree with your first point. I was going to respond last night but way to tired.

        But the quotes do raise a serious question. While the ABA says it is just looking at issues, the task force notice indicates they reached a conclusion BEFORE they did the investigation and that includes developing talking points to oppose these state laws.

        So why would they oppose these laws before they have taken a hard look? What “Constitutional” issues are raised by these laws that should involve the ABA?

        It certainly appears the ABA is not being totally honest about what is going on here and how it is related to the organization. So feel free to enlighten us if you can.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Haven’t had a chance to read up on everything that is going on on this one. Just felt the need to comment that it is BS to equate being against this legislation with being for Sharia law.

          Will try to dig up more as the day goes on, but promises to be a busy day.

%d bloggers like this: