PDA

View Full Version : Alito Commits Breach Of Protocal



Gayle in MD
01-28-2010, 10:52 AM
Johnathon Turley:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">


In a breach of protocol, Associate Justice Sam Alito was filmed during the State of the Union address last night shaking his head and mouthing “not true” in response to the President’s criticism of the Citizens United ruling on corporate campaign finance limits. Ironically, Rep. Joe Wilson promised to restrain himself during this speech and not scream “you lie” again during the President’s speech. For a justice, this breach (shown below) is no less remarkable. It is, in a word, injudicious.


Justices are expected not to express support or opposition to a president during the State of the Union — symbolizing the neutrality of the Court. This demonstration of Alito’s views undermines that principle and makes the Court look partisan and rather petty.

Justice are expected to speak through their opinions alone. Indeed, the relatively recent trend of justices speaking at conferences and associational meetings have troubled many of us. I have long favored the prior view that justices rarely speak in public — largely confined to graduations, funerals and the like. While Alito clearly experienced an uncontrolled moment, justices are expected to control themselves and act judiciously — particularly at major events like a State of the Union.

Alito should apologize to the President and to Congress (he and his colleagues are guests of the United States Congress) for the incident. Notably, if a president (or any citizen) goes to a court of law and mouths objections, they risk a contempt warning or sanction from the judge. No one requires a justice to come to the State of the Union. The price of this particular trick is to remain stoic and neutral. As with Wilson, there is limited audience participation. This is not Oprah, it is the State of the Union. When it comes to the justices, they should ideally not even applaud let alone express their views. They are present to show the unity of the tripartite system, but also to reaffirm the strict neutrality and apolitical role of the Court.

</div></div>

http://jonathanturley.org/2010/01/28/jus...-union-address/ (http://jonathanturley.org/2010/01/28/justice-alito-shown-shaking-his-head-and-mouthing-not-true-in-response-to-state-of-the-union-address/)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">JONATHAN TURLEY
Res ipsa loquitur ("The thing itself speaks")

Blog Bio Latest Column Corrections
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bio
JONATHAN TURLEY

Professor Jonathan Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law. He has written over three dozen academic articles that have appeared in a variety of leading law journals at Cornell, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, Northwestern, and other schools.

After a stint at Tulane Law School, Professor Turley joined the George Washington faculty in 1990 and, in 1998, was given the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law, the youngest chaired professor in the school’s history. In addition to his extensive publications, Professor Turley has served as counsel in some of the most notable cases in the last two decades ranging, representing whistleblowers, military personnel, and a wide range of other clients. These include his representation of the Area 51 workers at a secret air base in Nevada; the nuclear couriers at Oak Ridge, Tennessee; the Rocky Flats grand jury in Colorado; Dr. Eric Foretich, the husband in the famous Elizabeth Morgan custody controversy; and four former United States Attorneys General during the Clinton impeachment litigation. In the Foretich case, Turley succeeded recently in reversing a trial court and striking down a federal statute through a rare “bill of attainder” challenge. Professor Turley has also served as counsel in a variety of national security cases, including espionage cases like that of Jim Nicholson, the highest ranking CIA officer ever accused of espionage. Turley also served as lead defense counsel in the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia. Turley also served as defense counsel in the case of Dr. Tom Butler, who is facing criminal charges dealing with the importation and handling of thirty vials of plague in Texas. He also served as counsel to Larry Hanauer, the House Intelligence Committee staffer accused of leaking a classified Presidential National Intelligence Estimate to the New York Times. (Hanauer was cleared of all allegations).

Among his current cases, Professor Turley represents Dr. Ali Al-Timimi, who was convicted in Virginia in 2005 of violent speech against the United States. He also represents Dr. Sami Al-Arian, accused of being the American leader of a terrorist organization while he was a university professor in Florida. He also currently represents pilots approaching or over the age of 60 in their challenge to the mandatory retirement age of the FAA. He also represents David Murphee Faulk, the whistleblower who disclosed abuses in the surveillance operations at NSA’s Fort Gordon facility in Georgia. Turley has served as a consultant on homeland security and constitutional issues, including the Florida House of Representatives. He also served as the consultant to the Puerto Rico House of Representatives on the impeachment of Gov. Aníbal Acevedo Vilá.

Professor Turley is a frequent witness before the House and Senate on constitutional and statutory issues as well as tort reform legislation. Professor Turley is also a nationally recognized legal commentator. Professor Turley was ranked as 38th in the top 100 most cited “public intellectuals” in the recent study by Judge Richard Posner. Turley was also found to be the second most cited law professor in the country. He has been repeatedly ranked in the nation’s top 500 lawyers in annual surveys – one of only a handful of academics. In prior years, he was ranked as one of the nation’s top ten lawyers in military law cases as well as one of the top 40 lawyers under 40.

Professor Turley’s articles on legal and policy issues appear regularly in national publications with over 500 articles in such newspapers as the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal. He is on the Board of Contributors of USA Today. In 2005, Turley was given the Columnist of the Year award for Single-Issue Advocacy for his columns on civil liberties by the Aspen Institute and the Week Magazine. Professor Turley also appears regularly as a legal expert on all of the major television networks. Since the 1990s, he has worked under contract as the on-air Legal Analyst for NBC News and CBS News to cover stories that ranged from the Clinton impeachment to the presidential elections. Professor Turley is often a guest on Sunday talk shows with over two-dozen appearances on Meet the Press, ABC This Week, Face the Nation, and Fox Sunday.Professor Turley teaches courses on constitutional law, constitutional criminal law, environmental law, litigation, and torts. He is the founder and executive director of the Project for Older Prisoners (POPS).

Professor Turley received his B.A. at the University of Chicago and his J.D. at Northwestern. (In 2008, he was given an honorary Doctorate of Law from John Marshall Law School for his contributions to civil liberties and the public interest).


</div></div>

LWW
01-28-2010, 10:59 AM
Yet you have no issue with Obama telling blatant lies to the American people during a pontification reminiscent of a Stalin politburo speech?

Whoodathukit?

LWW

The Secretary
01-28-2010, 11:19 AM
Alito Commits Breach Of Protocal (sic) in the opinion of this guy......lol
from your post
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bio
JONATHAN TURLEY

Among his current cases, Professor Turley represents Dr. Ali Al-Timimi, who was convicted in Virginia in 2005 of violent speech against the United States. He also represents Dr. Sami Al-Arian, accused of being the American leader of a terrorist organization while he was a university professor in Florida. Turley also served as defense counsel in the case of Dr. Tom Butler, who is facing criminal charges dealing with the importation and handling of thirty vials of plague in Texas.
</div></div>

LWW
01-28-2010, 11:22 AM
That's why he's a regular guest on Rachel Madwoman's barely viewed show on MSNBC.

LWW

Deeman3
01-28-2010, 11:25 AM
Have you seen the AP's fact check on Obama's speech on MSNBC the website?


They call into question almost all his statements last night.

pooltchr
01-28-2010, 11:51 AM
Obama can stand up at the lecturn (not podium, lecturn, as I felt like he was giving a lecture to a freshman college class) and slam the Supreme Court for upholding the basic principles of the constitution, and we have a poster here who thinks one of the justice's committed a breech??????????????????????

WTF?????????????

Steve

Qtec
01-28-2010, 12:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Another Embarrassing Factcheck From Calvin Woodward
01/28/2010 by Jim Naureckas

AP's Calvin Woodward, who has the standing assignment of "factchecking" political speeches, <u>continues to be an embarrassment to genuine factcheckers everywhere--substituting his own weird value judgments, semantic games and crystal-ball gazing for genuine examination of facts</u> </div></div>

link (http://www.fair.org/blog/#post-13587)


Q

eg8r
01-28-2010, 12:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Justices are expected not to express support or opposition to a president during the State of the Union</div></div>So let's get this straight, if anyone other than a Dem disagrees with the President they are expressing opposition to the President? If the President was lying, and he has been proven a liar more than once, shouldn't we EXPECT a Justice to at least admit it?

eg8r

eg8r
01-28-2010, 12:35 PM
Well, if Jim Naureckas says Woodward is an embarrassment because Woodward called out lies of our President then qtip will believe him right from the get go.

eg8r

LWW
01-28-2010, 12:59 PM
Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting is named in true Orwellian fashion as their history has nothing to do with fairness or accuracy, in reporting or otherwise.

LWW

Gayle in MD
01-29-2010, 01:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: The Secretary</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Alito Commits Breach Of Protocal (sic) in the opinion of this guy......lol
from your post
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bio
JONATHAN TURLEY

Among his current cases, Professor Turley represents Dr. Ali Al-Timimi, who was convicted in Virginia in 2005 of violent speech against the United States. He also represents Dr. Sami Al-Arian, accused of being the American leader of a terrorist organization while he was a university professor in Florida. Turley also served as defense counsel in the case of Dr. Tom Butler, who is facing criminal charges dealing with the importation and handling of thirty vials of plague in Texas.
</div></div> </div></div>

<span style="color: #000066">While Mr. Turley, considered one of the best experts on Constitutional Law, is often the Attorney selected BECAUSE of his expertise on Constitutional Law, in cases such as the one you mention, to judge an attorney on the strength of who he has represented in the past, is truly false bravado, and not at all relevant.

The subject of this post is that Alito clearly Breached Protocal for a Supreme Court Judge.

Care to comment on the subject? Trashing an attorney on the strength of who he has represented, is absurd, given their professional peramaters, and responsibilities.

Justice Stevens is a sitting Supreme Court Judge, for example, and agrees with Turley's views.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There are U.S. subsidiaries of foreign-controlled corporations that could influence our elections because of this ruling."

The issue was raised by Justice John Paul Stevens in his dissent in the case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: “[I]t would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans.”


Stevens continued: “The Court all but confesses that a categorical approach to speaker identity is untenable when it acknowledges that Congress might be allowed to take measures aimed at “preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’s political process. … Such measures have been a part of U. S. campaign finance law for many years. The notion that Congress might lack the authority to distinguish foreigners from citizens in the regulation of electioneering would certainly have surprised the Framers.”


And on page 75, Stevens wrote: <span style='font-size: 20pt'>“Unlike voters in U. S. elections, corporations may be foreign controlled.” </span>
The nonpartisan Citizens for Public Integrity has asked: “Will the Citizens United Ruling Let Hugo Chavez and King Abdullah Buy U.S. Elections? Supreme Court Ruling May Open Door to Foreign State-Owned Corporate Political Spending.”

</div></div></span>

pooltchr
01-29-2010, 08:16 AM
Care to comment on Obama's breach of protocal in attacking the supreme court, and calling into question their integrity in the SOTU address???????


Steve

LWW
01-29-2010, 10:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Care to comment on Obama's breach of protocal in attacking the supreme court, and calling into question their integrity in the SOTU address???????


Steve </div></div>

Dearest leader is, of course, beyond question ... to some of us.

LWW

Gayle in MD
01-29-2010, 12:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Have you seen the AP's fact check on Obama's speech on MSNBC the website?


They call into question almost all his statements last night. </div></div>

<span style="color: #000066">I keep telling you guys, MSNBC is right-wing. </span>

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

<span style="color: #000066">And Fox, and the Republicans are out of touch with rality, as usual!!</span>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

EMBED
Embed this video:
Right-wing media accuse Obama of "intimidation" in "unprecedented" Supreme Court criticism

Right-wing media are attacking President Obama for his criticism of the recent Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC during the State of the Union, calling it "unprecedented" and accusing the president of "intimidation." In fact, Obama's comments were not "unprecedented"; Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush have previously used the State of the Union to criticize judicial actions, including those of the Supreme Court. </div></div>

http://mediamatters.org/research/201001290019
<span style="color: #000066">


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Napolitano: Obama's "attempt to intimidate" the Supreme Court has "never happened before." On the January 29 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Fox News contributor Andrew Napolitano said that the president's comments regarding the Supreme Court decision had "never happened before" and that he had "insulted them to their faces." He claimed that the Supreme Court justices were "guests" at the State of the Union and that "in that environment, [Obama] attacks them in a position where they cannot respond, and then attempts to intimidate them by inducing members of Congress to stand up and applaud, suggesting that he's right and they're wrong."

Krauthammer: Obama's comment "I believe is unprecedented." On the January 28 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer said, "President Obama attacked the Supreme Court at the State of the Union address, which I believe is unprecedented." He called the comments "a direct attack" and "a breach of etiquette which shouldn't have happened."

In fact, presidents have a history of directly addressing and criticizing the Supreme Court
Harding criticized the Supreme Court for overturning the Child Labor Law in his 1922 State of the Union. In 1922, the Supreme Court found the Child Labor Law of 1919 to be unconstitutional. In his State of the Union address, President Warren G. Harding criticized the court for putting "this problem outside the proper domain of Federal regulation until the Constitution is so amended as to give the Congress indubitable authority. I recommend the submission of such an amendment."

Reagan criticized the court for its ruling on school prayer. In his 1988 State of the Union address, Reagan expressed his displeasure with the court's recent ruling on school prayer:

And let me add here: So many of our greatest statesmen have reminded us that spiritual values alone are essential to our nation's health and vigor. The Congress opens its proceedings each day, as does the Supreme Court, with an acknowledgment of the Supreme Being. Yet we are denied the right to set aside in our schools a moment each day for those who wish to pray. I believe Congress should pass our school prayer amendment.

Reagan directly attacked the Supreme Court for Roe v. Wade. In his 1984 State of the Union address, Reagan attacked the 1973 Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade, during a discussion on abortion:

And while I'm on this subject, each day your Members observe a 200-year-old tradition meant to signify America is one nation under God. I must ask: If you can begin your day with a member of the clergy standing right here leading you in prayer, then why can't freedom to acknowledge God be enjoyed again by children in every schoolroom across this land?

[...]

During our first 3 years, we have joined bipartisan efforts to restore protection of the law to unborn children. Now, I know this issue is very controversial. But unless and until it can be proven that an unborn child is not a living human being, can we justify assuming without proof that it isn't? No one has yet offered such proof; indeed, all the evidence is to the contrary. We should rise above bitterness and reproach, and if Americans could come together in a spirit of understanding and helping, then we could find positive solutions to the tragedy of abortion.

Bush condemned "activist judges" who are "redefining marriage by court order." In his 2004 State of the Union address, Bush criticized "activist judges" who, according to him, were "redefining marriage by court order":

Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our Nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.

The outcome of this debate is important, and so is the way we conduct it. The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight.
</div></div>
Fox is such a Joke! How anyone can watch that BS station is beyond me.</span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Here's more on the incorrect attack, after the fact, regrding the truthfulness of the President's statements, obviously, one hundred percent reasonable and TRUE.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So who's going to fact-check PolitiFact?, cont'd
January 29, 2010 11:32 am ET by Eric Boehlert

We really wish this wasn't a semi-occasional feature, because we generally admire their work. But from time to time the folks over at PolitiFact seem to have a hard time grasping simple facts. Last December they rushed to the defense of Karl Rove after he made a patently false claim about Obama's polling numbers. And this week PolitiFact botches the issue of whether Obama was accurate when he suggested in the SOTU that a recent SCOTUS ruling (i.e. United Citizen v. FEC) could open the doors to foreign campaign donations.

Here's what Obama said at the SOTU:

Last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that's why I'm urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong."

It was at that point, of course, that Justice Samuel Alito was seen reacting to Obama's comments just feet away and mouthing "Not true"; a rather remarkable breach of protocol for a Justice. Alito's claim was then seized upon by the right-wing Noise Machine which announced unequivocally that Obama had "lied" about the United Citizen case.

Which means yeah, it's pretty important to figure out if Obama was accurate about the recent SCOTUS ruling. PolitiFact claims Obama's comments during the SOTU were "barely true." But after reading the dubious analysis, its clear that what PolitiFact did was fact-check something Obama didn't say, which is never helpful.

Again, here's what Obama did say:

I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections.

But rather than dealing with that comment, which is based on what Obama thinks might be the ramifications from Citizens United, PolitiFact pretends Obama made some sort of sweeping, definitive legal claim.

Here's a key graph from PolitiFact. Just try to square the highlighted sections with the fact that it declared that Obama's SOTU comment was "barely true":

Indeed, the legal experts we spoke to after Obama's radio address said that the president was overstating the immediate impact of the opinion. They said Obama was correct that the ruling could open the door to foreign companies spending on American campaigns, given the general direction of the majority's opinion.

Huh? Legal experts confirmed that Obama's point was accurate and that foreign companies could start spending money on U.S. elections, but PolitiFact determined that Obama's point was "barely true?" That, of course, makes no sense.

Here's where PolitiFact claims Obama messed up:

But because the majority justices didn't actually strike down the existing barriers on foreign companies -- in fact, they explicitly wrote that it fell beyond the boundaries of their decision -- our experts agreed that Obama erred by suggesting that the issue is settled law. Until test cases proceed and further rulings are handed down, Obama's claim about foreign campaign spending is a reasonable interpretation, and nothing more.


Are you serious? The SOTU just issued a ruling. Obama expressed his concern -- his opinion -- that the ruling would open the door to foreign corporation campaign donations. But PolitiFact insisted Obama's claim was "barely true" because Obama suggested "the issue is settled law." Um, where exactly did Obama make that suggestion? Because he certainly didn't make that suggestion in the SOTU, which is what PolitiFact is supposed to be fact-checking.

In other words, PolitiFact is scolding Obama for something he didn't say.

And here's the part where PolitiFact quotes legal scholars -- scholars who do nothing to back up the "barely true" claim:

"Some people think that Kennedy's opinion in Citizens United logically leads there," said Robert Kelner, who chairs the election and political law practice group at the law firm Covington & Burling. "Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. We don't know for sure."

Brett Kappel, a political law specialist with the law firm Arent Fox, said the Citizens United opinion "certainly could be read as declaring this provision unconstitutional, so I'd have to say the president's interpretation is correct -- but we won't really know for sure until a court rules on the issue."

Are you following? Obama said he "believes" the ruling will allow foreign corporations to spend on U.S. elections. And guess what? So do lots of legal scholars. But because the one-week old case hasn't been tested in court and because it's not settled law, PolitiFact claims Obama oversold the point. (It's "barely true!") Even though, all Obama did was say what he "believes" might happen.

This is really just weak stuff for a fact-checking org.

UPDATED: From blogger and respected constitutional law attorney Glenn Greenwald:

While the factual claims Obama made about the ruling are subject to reasonable dispute, they're well within the realm of acceptable political rhetoric and are far from being "false" (e.g., though the ruling did not strike down the exact provision banning foreign corporations from electioneering speech, its rationale could plausibly lead to that; moreover, it's certainly fair to argue, as Obama did, that the Court majority tossed aside a century of judicial precedent).

</div></div>

<span style="color: #000066">As usual, lies, lies and more lies, particularly from the right. </span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

pooltchr
01-29-2010, 12:50 PM
DeeMan. You aren't getting it. Anyone with enough integrity to voice an independent thought that doesn't follow the teachings of Obama, must be radical right wing, and therefore, not worthy of consideration.

The only reasonable thoughts must be in line with the teachings of the messiah. Anyone who questions Obama, or points out any misrepresentation of facts by him must immediately villified, even if they toe the line most of the time. Speaking out against the Obible is grounds for excommunication!

Steve

LWW
01-29-2010, 12:54 PM
Astounding that anyone could actually believe the following is reality ...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
http://weblog.signonsandiego.com/weblogs/afb/archives/Keith%2520Olbermann.jpg
Don't tell anyone, but I'm a closet wingnut member
of the vast right wing conspiracy!

LWW

Deeman3
01-29-2010, 01:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD [/quote</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Fox is such a Joke! How anyone can watch that BS station is beyond me.[/color] /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

<span style="color: #FF0000">Yes and the very fact that more Americasn watch it then MSNBC, HLN, CNN and NPR combined is even more amazing. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </span> </div></div>

Gayle in MD
01-29-2010, 01:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD </div></div>
Fox is such a Joke! How anyone can watch that BS station is beyond me.[/color</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

<span style="color: #FF0000">Yes and the very fact that more Americasn watch it then MSNBC, HLN, CNN and NPR combined is even more amazing. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </span> </div></div> [/quote]


<span style="color: #000066">I don't find that amazing at all, in fact, about that, I've always thought, "Well then, that explains everything!"

</span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

eg8r
01-29-2010, 02:54 PM
Why do you people keep spelling protocol with an "a"?

eg8r

pooltchr
01-29-2010, 05:09 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD </div></div>
Fox is such a Joke! How anyone can watch that BS station is beyond me.[/color</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

<span style="color: #FF0000">Yes and the very fact that more Americasn watch it then MSNBC, HLN, CNN and NPR combined is even more amazing. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </span> </div></div> </div></div>


<span style="color: #000066">I don't find that amazing at all, in fact, about that, I've always thought, "Well then, that explains everything!"

</span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif [/quote]

Are you saying that the majority of Americans are uninformed? Well, you may have a point. After all, they did vote for Obama!

Steve