The Role of the Supreme Court in Shaping the Gay Rights Movement

The history of gay rights in the United States is a long and complicated one, one that has touched all spheres of life in this country. Historically, gay rights activists fought for equal protection and due process under the law, a battle that, even though the issues have changed, is still being fought today. The 20^th century saw the formation of a homosexual identity and a gay subculture. Law, religion, and, in the early part of the century, the medical profession criminalized, demonized, and degraded homosexual individuals. Today, citizens, lawyers, and congressmen are fighting for same-sex marriage and the right to serve openly in the military. Who will guide us in becoming a nation accepting of the LGBT community? Will it be the people or the Courts? The attitude of the public towards homosexuals is important to consider with issues of gay rights, but great power also lies with the Supreme Court’s precedent on the right to privacy, and how it applies the due process and equal protection clause.

In 1986, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, upheld the constitutionality of a Georgia Sodomy Law that criminalized oral and anal sex as applied to consenting, homosexual adults. The Supreme Court greatly exceeded its authority in deciding the case of Bowers v. Hardwick in multiple ways. The issue presented before the Supreme Court was the right to privacy, which the Court had ruled implicit in the due process clause in cases like Griswold v. Connecticut, Loving v. Virginia, Skinner v. Oklahoma, and Roe v. Wade. The Court reframed the case by making a ruling on the constitutionality of homosexual sodomy, while ignoring precedent and without a ruling from the lower courts. The restructuring of the case is even more puzzling because the Georgia Statute being challenged included heterosexual sodomy. The way the justices handled the case and the content of the majority opinion, where Justice White called Hardwick’s request for protection under the Constitution, “facetious,” suggests that the justices in the majority took issue with homosexual activity. Making decisions based on negative attitudes towards homosexual activity is reasonable for a private citizen, but not for a justice of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States, but a great majority of the citizenry does not realize its power and influence. The Bowers decision fueled the fire of both gay rights activists and opponents of gay rights. Many states repealed their sodomy laws in the years that followed Bowers, but the decision was also used to deny gay people certain rights, like the custody of their children. After Bowers, sodomy laws were rarely enforced in matters of private, consensual homosexual activity, but laws on the books in many states still classified homosexuals as criminals. The questionable decision made by five justices, based more on emotional and personal preference than the rule of law, endorsed the criminal status of homosexuals.

In the past decade, many states have legally recognized civil unions between same-sex couples, and five states plus the District of Columbia have legalized same-sex marriage. According to multiple public opinion polls (CNN, Gallup, Pew, Associated Press), the number of people in favor of same-sex marriage has increased within the past decade. While the Supreme Court does not make decisions based on public opinion, the more tolerant and diverse atmosphere in the Court and in the nation was almost impossible to ignore in 2003, as evidenced in the Lawrence v. Texas decision. In a 6-3 decisions, the Court held that private, consensual sex between same-sex adults was protected under the Constitution, and that Bowers should be struck down. As conservative as the three justices in the minority were, Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas came up with minimal support for the Texas sodomy law. The ruling in Lawrence invalidated sodomy laws in all states as they applied to homosexuals and heterosexuals, but more importantly the ruling revoked homosexual individuals’ criminal status.

Who knows best, the people or the courts? The problem with leaving issues of civil rights up the to public is that there are always at least two different opinions. The Supreme Court essentially gives only one answer. Of course, the opinion of the public matters in shaping national attitudes, but it is ultimately up to the courts to make the final decisions. When considering Bowers, it is clear that the Supreme Court has endorsed injustice, but it has also played a role in creating a more accepting nation. Loving v. Virginia (1967) was decided at a time when most Americans were against interracial marriage, but the ruling helped to change those opinions. The people of California have spoken out against same-sex marriage, but is it right to allow one group of people to decide the fate of another group of people? The Supreme Court holds a great deal of power in our country, and while it is sometimes troubling the think about the magnitude of its influence on everyday life, we live our lives by the decisions the Supreme Court makes.

A Conspiracy to Take Over the World! Or at least Sex-Ed

America is seeing its largest numbers of churchgoers and God-believing citizens in history. America has also seen the religious right take the stage, along with conservatives, as an influential and powerful voting bloc, having invested a huge effort into fighting to uphold family values and a right to life. The staggering rate of divorce and teen pregnancy are truly shocking, but is Christianity the answer to our moral conundrum? Can Christian values stop teen pregnancy?

Teen pregnancy is a real issue and is a very difficult thing for a young woman to go through. There can be damaging social and emotional repercussions from dropping out of school, putting future plans on hold, and breaking the news to parents and loved ones. An unplanned teen pregnancy is a life changing event and one that should be taken seriously. So how should we educate youth about the consequences of sex? Should we give them the tools to safely and smartly navigate the daunting, but mostly thrilling world of sexual relations, or should we just scare the sex right out of them by threatening them with eternal damnation?

There are two approaches when it comes to addressing teen pregnancy in this country. One is comprehensive sex education, where children are taught in school how to use contraceptives and are educated about STDs. Picture a classroom of pre-teens partaking in the practice of putting a condom on a banana. The second approach to sex education is abstinence-only. This method teaches children not to have sex until marriage and usually has heavy religious undertones. Picture the same classroom full of pre-teens who have had their hormonal drives squashed out of them by the invocation of God’s wrath. Don’t worry, the fear is usually temporary, it is the guilt that lasts.

The religious right has successfully convinced legislators in some states, like Arizona, Texas, and Utah, that abstinence-only should be taught in schools instead of comprehensive sex ed. This is all done in the name of saving our nation from sin. I understand the importance of religion in many American’s lives, but what I don’t understand is why it’s ok for Christian values to be promoted and taught in our government-funded public schools, especially values that could do more harm than good. A study done by the Guttmacher Institute suggested that a recent increase in teen pregnancies was directly related to a focus on abstinence-only education under the Bush Administration. Let’s face it, kids are going to do it no matter what we tell them.

Religion and politics go together like men and women; you can’t live with ‘em, but you can’t live without ‘em. When our founding fathers wrote the Constitution, they purposefully made it a secular, godless document, contrary to what many on the religious right say. However, the writers of the Constitution were not godless men. In fact, many of them were very religious and understood the importance of religion in democracy, but they saw religion as a private matter. It is not the government’s job to produce moral citizens; rather, it is the job of moral citizens to uphold democracy, and one does not have to be Christian to have morals. First and foremost, it is the job of the government to protect a citizen’s rights, and how can everyone’s rights be protected if we become a Christian nation?

History shows us that several concessions have been made in favor of Christianity. For example, no Sunday mail, state-sponsored prayer in public schools, teaching Creationism, and, of course, abstinence-only sex education. The religious right falsely believes that God was originally in the Constitution and that liberals throughout history have changed it into a secular document. In reality, it is the religious right who has hounded our godless Constitution to such a degree that there is talk of over-turning Roe v. Wade and repealing privacy laws.

Besides the fact that abstinence-only education isn’t very effective and we should be worried that it could cause more pregnancies then it could prevent, we should be equally worried that abstinence-only is a Christian value that has found its way into the public school system. I believe that religion is a place where those in need can find solace and support, not where one turns to be informed about which way to vote. Religion should be a resource for those who need it, not a political tool or training ground. So the next time you vote, vote for someone who will make children put condoms on bananas. Do it for the kids.

The Establishment Clause: Separation of Personal Belief and Democratic Reason

Political debates and disagreements in America have often stemmed from its citizens not being able to settle on a single definition of what the role of Government should play. Thomas Jefferson, a key Founding Father, defined the role of the government as purely for the protection of life, liberty, and property and that it should keep peace and order in our highly individualistic society. He believed it should only protect those unalienable rights and should otherwise allow its people to live freely however they choose. Other political and non-political figures throughout history have strongly believed that the role of government contains more duties than just merely protection; they believe government should also be responsible for upholding the moral codes of its people. Those who believed the sole purpose of government was to protect its people agreed that the state should remain secular and separate from all religious affiliation. Those that believed the government should also be responsible for its citizens’ ethical codes thought that a religiously affiliated government was the only way to ensure peace and good morals. Therein lies the root of the major debate that has been present in our country since the start: The Separation of Church and State.
There is a very common misconception that the United States of America was and is to this day an essentially Christian nation. I, myself, was under the impression that our Founding Fathers were all religious men and therefore intended our country to be a religious one. “In God we Trust” is printed in bold letters on our currency, that right there gives you the impression that our country was founded on religious affiliation. The truth is that this country was built from the ideals of the Age of Reason, not Jesus Christ. The Constitution was modeled after the ideas and writings of John Locke, a leading figure in the Enlightenment. The creators of the Constitution critically analyzed their history and their current situation and wrote a Constitution representing a government that would benefit the majority of the country’s people and give a strong basis for the protection of life, liberty and property. The Constitution is one of the most beautifully written and important documents the world has seen. It is a true model of reason, rationality and justice.
I believe the Founding Fathers were truly amazing and reliable thinkers that have given us the best basis for a government that we could have asked for. To honor them, though, we must adopt the rational and critical thinking that they put into the Constitution into the way we relate to and understand the document’s purpose. We must take into consideration the context of the Constitution: when it was written and what was currently going on at the time that would affect the way it was written. We also must be familiar with the authors and their own ideas and histories. If we studied the Constitution’s history accordingly, we could clearly see that the Founding Fathers were strong advocates for the Separation of Church and State. Such misconceptions would no longer be present in our country. The Constitution was not a holy document formed out of absolute perfection. It was a brilliant text written through research, critical analysis, discussion, observations and revisions; essentially, it was a result of very hard work. If we as citizens were to become experts on our Constitution and our history, I believe our country would have significantly less conflict.
A perfect example of constitutional misinterpretation lies in the current day “Tea Partiers”. They use this idea of the Constitution holding all the answers of our country’s problems when, in fact, they are incorrect in their own interpretation. They hold a strong belief that the Separation of Church and State is detrimental to the success of our country when in fact their beloved Constitution clearly states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Tea Partiers tend to narrow this translation into meaning only that there should be no national church. When examined logically, in its broader historical sense, the First Amendment clearly states that no establishment or exercise of religion should be favored by the State.
The essence, I believe of The Separation of Church and State is really about the separation of personal belief and democratic reason. While our Founding Fathers were all very religious men, they knew the importance of this separation and formed the constitution based on it. Church and State must remain separate in order to sustain freedom and justice. This does not mean our country is an anti-religious one; it merely means that a single institutional opinion (religion) cannot rule the lives of a whole country, while retaining liberty and peace.

Immigrant Oppression: A Result of Economic Hardship

America is essentially a country of immigrants. As an expected result, immigration is and always has been a leading topic of debate and examination within our country. When examining our country’s history with immigration, a reoccurring theme seems to pop up. Tensions seem to grow high around immigration when our country is going through times of economic despair. Fear causes people to search for something or someone to blame and point their fingers at. In times of fear we can see time and time again that immigrants are the easy target that receive all the blame for any number of socioeconomic problems. Because of the vastness of the topic, in my commentary I will discuss a few major historical events that display many of the issues that come up with immigration.
When examining the vast subject of immigration in American history, it is important to keep in mind the difference between voluntary and involuntary immigration. Voluntary immigration refers to those people that willingly chose to immigrate to America for personal and voluntary reasons. Involuntary immigration refers to those people that were moved into America against their will, most specifically through the slave-trade. Understanding this important difference allows slave rights and civil rights to play a key part in the history of immigration in America.
In the late 1700’s, France had just ended its massive revolution. John Adams, who was currently the president of the United States was facing the fear that America would be subject to a large increase in immigrants, specifically French radical refugees. He was afraid that the radical revolutionary thinking would influence the United States and cause conflict and chaos. In response to this fear, four laws were passed in an attempt to strengthen federal government and discourage political opposition from the Republicans led by Jefferson. The law first was the Naturalization Act which required fourteen years of residency before citizenship, when the residency requirement had previously been five years. The second law was the Alien Act, which authorized the President to deport aliens that threatened the peace and safety of the United States. The third law was the Alien Enemies Act, which allowed wartime arrest, imprisonment and ultimately deportation of any alien subject to enemy power. The fourth and final act was the Sedition Act, which made it a crime for anyone to criticize the government. The Alien and Sedition Acts caused great injustice and were met with significant controversy, especially from Jefferson and his supporters. The Sedition Act in particular proved to be extremely unconstitutional; it did not allow for freedom of speech or freedom of the press.
In 1846, the Irish Potato Famine caused the emigration of millions of Irish people. 1.5 million disadvantaged, poor and unskilled Irish people immigrated to America. The result was great oppression of these Irish immigrants. They were viewed and treated as intruders. The Irish were depicted as lazy, dirty and stupid, and Americans continuously expressed their concern that Irish people taking all their jobs.
The Dred Scott decision in 1857 was the first impactful case that asked the question: where do free blacks fit in this country? Previously, the role of black people was easily defined as slaves and as property. As abolitionism rose and states began to declare themselves as “free states,” some black people were given their freedom. The Dred Scott decision declared that Dred Scott was still a slave because Congress did not have the right to prohibit slavery in federally owned territories. The decision also announced that black people were not citizens nor did they have any rights laid out in the Constitution because the Constitution was written for white people only. “We the People” did not include blacks.
The Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882 was one of the most extreme immigration laws our country has seen. It suspended all Chinese immigration for 10 years and barred the Chinese from citizenship. In addition, it barred convicts, lunatics and certain handicapped people. This extreme course of immigration action can only stem from irrational, emotional racism. Propaganda at that time showed the Chinese as inhuman creatures with alien-esque features and cartoonish yellow skin. To induce fear, it was said that the Chinese carried a highly contagious disease called “the yellow peril.”
Throughout history, we can see the poor decisions and courses of action that have been taken due to fear and misplaced blame during times of economic hardship. Immigration is a huge issue with too many factors to have a right way to deal with it and a wrong way. The best way we can avoid conflict and injustice surrounding immigrants and their rights is to identify our fear as something that may not necessarily be caused by a certain group of people. We must use our rational intellect and search for solutions for our economic problems, rather than causing larger problems fueled by fear and racism.

Cats and Dogs Living Together… Mass Hysteria

       As a nation, we claim to not discriminate based on gender, race, class or economic status.  Following this line of reasoning, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution clearly establishes protections and freedoms that apply to all citizens of the United States, without prejudice.  The majority of Americans, without the realization that an assault is being led to deny these equal rights to an entire minority, accepts these fundamental freedoms.  It is apparent, by hyperbolic rhetoric in the news, that the right for same-sex couples to have their union acknowledged legally has become an explosive issue for the conservative Christian Right.  Seen as an assault on traditional family values, the issue of gay marriage has helped to steer the political and social climate down a dangerous road.  This course not only threatens the civil liberties of an entire minority, but the basic freedoms we all take for granted in the First Amendment.  As distasteful as blatant bigotry towards homosexuals is, the belief behind this conservative movement is far more insidious as it threatens the spirit of the Constitution.

            While assuring the rights of individuals to practice their own religion without persecution or harassment, the First Amendment or Establishment Clause does not establish the United States as a Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist nation.  Though the Christian Right is welcome to their beliefs, to preach what they would like without inciting violence and conduct their lives as they see fit, they are not allowed to impose their beliefs on our nation.  This establishes that, though gay marriage may offend and infuriate some in the Christian Right, they have no right to block legalization on those grounds.  This fact has caused a rift within the Christian faith as more progressive thinkers acknowledge and seek to ensure same-sex couples’ equal rights.  There are many Christians who attempt to practice the love they preach by establishing inclusive churches, supporting same-sex legislation and working with the members of their communities to create safe spaces against discrimination.

              The opposing view of that rift has more conservative Christians arguing that marriage is a sacred institution and would be destroyed by allowing same-sex couples equal access.  There is an assertion made that the term “marriage” is sacred as it stands as a covenant in the eyes of God.  Since the Bible explicitly forbids homosexuality in Leviticus, allowing equal access to marriage for all individuals would be sacrilege.  If marriage is a sacred and a religious institution, and I truly believe it is for some people, why do we have laws protecting it at all?  Is this not a gross violation of the First Amendment?  Should we not move away from a model of civil marriage that a certain group finds sacred, so that the government can protect its citizens without treading on the rights of others?

            Perhaps one avenue to bring about this change would be if we were to remove the term “marriage”, in its entirety, from law.  We could essentially remove the point of religious contention from debate and, in doing so, ensure all individuals equal access to the same rights and freedoms.  Implementing a system that acknowledges civil unions for all would secure the rights of power of attorney, property and “marriage” for legal partnerships without infringing on any specific group’s beliefs and traditions.  That would allow individuals to worship as they choose and marry under whatever god they do or do not believe in. 

            If this compromise is rejected on the grounds that the term and identity of marriage are too far established as a norm within our culture, then I believe it is the government’s responsibility to provide equal access to the institution of marriage for all individuals, regardless of religious consideration.  Whether one believes in a “Living Constitution” model or is an Originalist, the separation of Church and State clearly exists within the Establishment Clause.  Those that believe in the basic principles of our country and the freedoms provided therein, would be wise to embrace this wall separating religion and law, as it protects their rights as well.  By protecting the freedoms of all, we protect ourselves, as we never know when we may become the minority.

USA immigration- the seesaw effect

A tipping point can be described as the moment where a seesaw is suspended midair, perfectly stabilized on both sides. It is that precise moment where the scales are about to change on either end. More importantly, it is a time of social transformation.  The United States has a rather precarious relationship with its immigration history. The Supreme Court as well as Congress remain instrumental in providing America with its melting pot of culture and capital. Bubbling inside this melting pot are legislations such as SB1070, HB2281 and the Mexican Border Wall; all are simmering after flames of the September 11 attacks. Has this pot reached its boiling point? Or, in referring back to the cyclic American history of fear, economic hardship and scapegoating, perhaps the current focus on immigration is simply another ingredient for the mixture?  If the scales won’t be tipped today, United States Immigration as a future can only be predicted by examining its historical relationships with foreign settlers.

The United States has a history of racially targeting minority groups with immigration law. This precedent was set when Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882 to specifically limit further Chinese immigration for a period of ten years. The Chinese had immigrated to the Western United States as a result of unsettled conditions in China, the availability of jobs working on railroads, and the Gold Rush that was going on at that time in California. Fear of Asian laborers grew, resulting in the xenophobic "Yellow Peril" expression. Fear mongering cannot be dismissed in analyzing the intentions behind this immigration act. Many Chinese immigrants were denied entry and mistreated due to their Asian origins, and the belief that their “otherness” and sudden influx of numbers would result in a takeover of American culture. Today, this fear festers in the disproportionate attention given to immigration issues. Whether in the form of jobs stolen for cheaper wages, tax dollars cruelly ripped from hardworking Americans to service “illegal aliens,” or “Yellow Peril,” the baseline motivator appears to have remained the same.

The shutting down of immigration during the Great Depression represents only further marginalizing of the very immigrants who founded the American economy. In 1932, President Roosevelt and the State Department sent immigration numbers from 236,000 in 1926 to 23,000 in 1933. This was accompanied by voluntary repatriation to Europe and Mexico, and coerced repatriation and deportation of between 500,000 and 2 million Mexican Americans, mostly citizens, in the Mexican Repatriation. When the economy deteriorates, foreign settlers often find themselves vulnerable and targeted. This is a bi-partisan agenda to create a sense of false security by projecting the dangers of the failing economy on the brown faces of these foreign settlers. It deflects attention from government incompetence as managers of the American economy. Today, Fox News is the most accessible and highly viewed technique of deflection in American History.

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 affected immigration for years to come. A total of 20 foreign-born terrorists were involved. The terrorists had entered the country on tourist or student visas. Four of them, however, had violated the terms of their visas and became “illegal aliens.” The attack exposed long-standing holes in the U.S. immigration system that included failures at visa processing, internal enforcement, and information sharing. This forced the government to look at longstanding immigration policy and restrict it further. September 11 became a catalyst for future border protection, particularly the continued erection and militarization of the Mexican Border Wall. National Security was preached from every pulpit, and immigrants began to seriously suffer the consequences. Today this has resulted in Arizona’s SB1070 bill, as well as the privatization of prisons around the United States. Fear has proved to be a moneymaking business, to the detriment of those held in private detention centers. Legal immigrants are deported due to the color of their skin, and the bias of Fox News prevails. Is this a tipping point?

  In conclusion, the seesaw effect will continue for years to come. America’s social transformations have impacted immigration, just as immigrants have effected cultural change. The melting pot of culture will forever continue to be dictated by a cycle of past immigration history and current climates of fear, agenda, and economy.  

Sedition, Not in the News, but from it

            The debate over religion in the United States has long been a contentious one, but for practical purposes, the role of news in the modern-day religious, dogmatic war on the secular nature of the Constitution and how it came about, are vital components worth exploring.  This very real and insidious movement cites an overall goal of creating a Christian state governed by Christian ideologies.  This has been an ongoing process.  Throughout the last thirty years, the Supreme Court has been stacked with conservatives.  Now, a modern day, conservative news network has come into existence, providing new life for the assault to take on a more subversive nature. The deterioration of the wall between Church and State has gone largely unchecked, no longer having the watchful eye of the independent free press, as the television news media has deteriorated into an indiscernible mass of partisan punditry.

            In today’s world of instant and perpetual television reporting, the dynamic of what constitutes “news” has changed substantially since the days of Walter Cronkite.  We have moved from investigative journalism designed to provide objective information and answers, to a twenty-four hour, voyeuristic gluttony in the form of opinion and subjective analysis that offers rumor and theory as fact, and often seeks to create exaggerated conflict for the sake of boosting ratings.  Even more to the point, a large amount of this news is actually misinformation in the form of skewed fact for political gain.  Since uniformed reporters become more eager to be first to break stories, there is more and more conjecture and out-and-out, unchallenged lies from “experts”, rather than accurate reporting.  The abandonment of quality for the sake of quantity has encouraged cable media outlets to compete, not for the most accurate and reliable reports, but for who can create the most entertaining and contentious commentary.

            The conservative Fox News outlet took the lead in this category shortly after Obama won the election, when we saw their narrative develop into one of blame for the new president’s inability to immediately fix the economy.  They built on the feelings of helplessness among the unemployed and, after that seed of doubt took root, they began to slowly shape a discourse questioning Obama’s ability to lead and how our economic plight was a direct result of Democratic ineptitudes. The evolution of this theme came to full realization after a tirade by Rick Santelli on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange about the irresponsibility of homeowners in the economic crisis.  With a tactically placed hand, Fox was able to use this as a rallying cry for a return to free market economics, while shaking off the fist of the tyrannical government and subsequently gave birth to the Tea Party Movement.

            The Tea Party, nurtured by Fox News pundits Glen Beck and Sarah Palin, preaches the merits of the uninhibited free market and a return to traditional Constitutional values as defined by the conservative right.  The movement identifies as a grass roots coalition devoted to wresting America from the grip of the Socialist agenda of the liberal left.  It claims to seek a return to the country envisioned by our founders, one Christian nation under God, complete with trickle-down economic theory and tort reform.  It is the idea of a Christian nation as envisioned by the founders that is perhaps the most dangerous offering Fox News has woven into its web, as it is a fraud being perpetrated on the American people. The fundamental flaw in their reasoning is made clear by the literary work The Godless Constitution by Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore, which explains why our founding fathers intentionally created a secular government, despite the Judeo-Christian leanings of the people.  This reality appears to have been lost on the Tea Party movement despite their frequent proclamations as touters, supporters and experts of the ‘true’ Constitution as envisioned by our founders.

            I do not mean to insinuate that all Tea Party supporters, or “Patriots” as they self identify, realize they are being subversive in their movement, as many are merely citizens that are frustrated by the partisan nature and dysfunction of our government. Nonetheless, it is important to realize that their energy is being used as a political tool for the conservative right.  What is truly the seditious factor in the equation is the misinformation that Fox News puts forth, which then the Tea Party eagerly embraces as truth, often targeting progressivism.  Fox has created a brilliantly subtle system in which their message can be disseminated.  By creating a general distrust of academia as liberal and elitist, they are able to insulate themselves from independent and research-based inquiry.  They report twisted and false fact from their “experts” and, at the same time, demonize the rest of the mainstream news as liberally biased as a way of discrediting them.  With this, Fox has created a nearly impenetrable narrative in which it can safely espouse conservative doctrine without fear of losing its followers to critique of its message.

            Ironically, it is the first amendment they so ardently attack as they strive for a Christian nation, which also provides to them a freedom of the press.  Perhaps the most disturbing factor is the apparent lack of options to combat Fox News’ Tea Party agenda.  I suppose our best form of defense is to continue to draw from as many news sources as possible, listen to as many opinions as possible then, choose carefully where you shop and whom it supports because in a free-market economy, apparently, a dollar is a vote.