It may be just a coincidence that as I have grown older I have grown more pessimistic about the state of the union, but I don’t think so. I am well aware how easy it might be to project my own declines (old age is a bitch) on the world. Still, the evidence of “Empire’s End” is everywhere. The story at hand is just one of many data points.
When I was young, even American Nazis had 1st Amendment rights. Today, only “politically correct” identity groups do, whereas “politically incorrect” groups face federal harassment.
It gets worse. In 1928 Edward Bernays published his groundbreaking work, Propaganda, which proposed, “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.” It is my observation that the organs of propaganda have become so powerful within the USA that nothing like a nation exists anymore.
And yet I remain optimistic. Our Declaration of Independence and Constitution are antidotes to the political madness we currently endure. I may not live to see their principles resurrected in my lifetime, but I expect they will be resurrected.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
“Truthful hyperbole”?
Four parents of transgender minors (under 19 according to Alabama) sued to block the pharmaceutical portion of a ban on dysphoria treatments. DOJ joined the suit.
Eagle Forum was instrumental in writing the legislation and is certainly part of the suit as far as background and information is concerned.
It is a civil suit, not a criminal investigation. But the plaintiffs have a right to gather pertinent information to press their point. That information should include reasoning and other data that was influential and even critical to the enactment of legislation affecting the lives of the plaintiffs.
Another report that I think is less hyperventilating:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/eagle-forum-of-alabama-doj-subpoena-over-trans-medical-care-a-e2-80-98blatant-attack-on-free-speech-e2-80-99/ar-AA11zKeZ
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “But the plaintiffs have a right to gather pertinent information to press their point.”
Not necessarily. The subpoena creates a burden on EFA that must be reasonable. Also, it is questionable whether EFA can provide any information that is material to the case being tried.
EFA argues that the burden is unreasonable because its actions in support of the new law are protected by the 1st Amendment. Further, the plaintiffs and DOJ brought suit on the claim that the new law is unconstitutional. Their case concerns the law as written, not how the law was conceived; EFA can only provide information describing the new law’s conception.
It is entirely appropriate to call the third party subpoena EFA received an outrage.
LikeLike
“The subpoena requests that the Eagle Forum turn over any draft versions of the bill that the organization helped write.”
Drafting legislation is not just a lobbying effort.
LikeLiked by 2 people
So what? Do you seriously contend that one is protected speech whereas the other is not?
LikeLike
Protected speech is not necessarily immune to subpoena in a lawsuit. Why would it be?
Speech rights mean you can say what you want but you are still responsible for legal effects on others.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “Protected speech is not necessarily immune to subpoena in a lawsuit. Why would it be?”
For two reasons in this case: The burden the subpoena places on the recipient must be reasonable; also, the information the subpoena requests must be material to the case at hand.
RE: “Speech rights mean you can say what you want but you are still responsible for legal effects on others.”
EFA cannot have been responsible for the legal effects on others because it did not enact the legislation at issue.
LikeLike
“The burden the subpoena places on the recipient must be reasonable”…
If a judge signed off on the subpoena, then it stands to reason that burden is met. Same is true of the materiality.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Where is it written that First Amendment speech protection makes it immune from investigation.
Immunity from prosecution by the government is not the case here. Eagle Forum is not being prosecuted.
The plaintiffs are asserting parental rights against state control.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “If a judge signed off on the subpoena, then it stands to reason that burden is met. Same is true of the materiality.”
No, it doesn’t. Judges can be wrong. In fact, the allegation here is that the judge is very wrong.
LikeLike
RE: “Where is it written that First Amendment speech protection makes it immune from investigation.”
As stated in the PJ Media article: “The right to associate freely with other citizens who share your interests was recognized by the Supreme Court in 1959 in NAACP v. Alabama. Ironically enough, in that case, the Alabama state government was harassing the NAACP with similar demands for information due to its work on civil rights issues and legislation.”
LikeLike
EFA is not a party to the suit.
Have they lobbied for their point of view, sure, but how does that make their internal communications relevant?
Would you support a subpoena for Planned Parenthood’s internal communications if someone sues Jane’s Revenge for vandalizing adoption centers?
How is that different?
LikeLike
…”how does that make their internal communications relevant?”
Lobbying and offering language for bills makes it relevant.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So, we apply the same standard to Planned Parenthood, The Seirra Club, and other advocacy groups? All their internal communications are to be seized?
Or is it only groups you don’t approve of who lose their rights?
LikeLike
If they are WRITING language for laws, then yes, they could be.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Lobbying and offering language for bills makes it relevant.”
Relevant, perhaps, but not material.
LikeLike
Don SPECIFICALLY said “relevant”. I made the point that it was.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If there was evidence that PPA influenced the vandal then communications may very well be relevant. Especially if the vandal gave specific information that he was directly communicating with PPA.
Eagle Forum had been writing drafts for the legislation and was strongly involved as far as I could see. Such communications and memos may be very relevant to the plaintiffs’ case.
LikeLiked by 2 people
What is unlawful about petitioning the legislature?
LikeLike
Nothing. You seem to be skirting the fact that EF is not being prosecuted. It is a civil lawsuit and the plaintiffs are getting discovery.
Are you saying they are not allowed to do that?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Absolutely.
EFA is not a party to the suit. It is a third party subpoena in a civil suit. That does not justify intimidating them and others who might also want to weigh in on the issue.
LikeLike
“Conservative” hypocrisy. Again.
The constant refrain is that parents have rights that the state cannot ignore. Unless it wants to do what “conservatives” want done. In this case the right of parents to choose a course of treatment for their child – forbidden by law because some “Christians” find it sinful.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So, because Christians deserve bashing, it is OK to abuse the law.
LikeLike
Uh, the Theocrat law is being challenged not abused.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The story concerns an abusive third party subpoena. Surely abusive subpoenas are always unacceptable.
LikeLike
So, it is not abuse of the law in question that you are talking about. Thanks for clarifying.
The “abuse” you ARE talking about is being adjudicated. If you contribute materially to a law that will curtail the rights of other people, is what you have done not subject to the scrutiny of the courts charged with evaluating the Constitutionality of the law you wrote? The answer is not as black and white as you seem to think, but for sure, “conservatives” love to whine and play their little victim cards.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “If you contribute materially to a law that will curtail the rights of other people, is what you have done not subject to the scrutiny of the courts charged with evaluating the Constitutionality of the law you wrote?”
In this case, no. See my explanations to Mr. Rothman.
LikeLike
OK, I am opposed to puberty blockers and other medications and surgeries on minors. And I do not base that on any religious belief.
You yourself have advocated for limiting firearms rights to those under 21 claiming their brains were not fully developed for that responsibility.
I maintain that for similar reasons, medical intervention for gender dysphoria is child abuse as they cannot consent, nor can their parents do so on their behalf, to irreversible measures prior to their physiologic development.
As often as you invoke Christianity yourself, accusing others you do not know of Theocratic motives alone is projection.
LikeLike
“You yourself have advocated for limiting firearms rights to those under 21 claiming their brains were not fully developed for that responsibility.”
You have me confused with someone else. I have not opined about brain development and gun ownership. But YOU have opined about inviolable parental rights but now cheerlead for a law that obliterates them and does real harm to their children. Besides, the parents giving medically informed consent to treatments that you don’t like are almost all over 21.
You can pretend that Christofascists are not the moving force behind the culture war bullshit if you want to, but they are. Here is an OPINION piece laying out chapter and verse.
https://www.salon.com/2022/06/28/christian-fascism-is-right-here-right-now-after-roe-can-we-finally-see-it/
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t support a right of parents to inflict FGM on their daughters either.
Puberty blockers do irreparable harm to a teen’s development. They are not reversible. Tanner stage 2 kids who get puberty blockers will never experience orgasm. They are the pharmaceutical equivalent of FGM.
Misery loves company, and there is a segment of the Trans community that is hyping their choice on woke parents.
Nothing to do with religion, I just believe in protecting children from abuse.
LikeLike
“I don’t support a right of parents to inflict FGM on their daughters either.”
I am not aware of ANY bona fide medical opinion in support of FGM for any reason. That is hardly analogous to approved therapies for real dysphoria initiated based on desires and informed consent of the patient, approval of the parents, and the advice of qualified doctors.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Children who suffer from gender dysphoria are 19 times more likely to commit suicide, with or without transition. It is a mental illness that needs to be treated, not catered to.
LikeLike
“Children who suffer from gender dysphoria are 19 times more likely to commit suicide”…
Is that true of ALL children with Gender Dysphoria or just the ones who are not given the proper care?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Would it make a difference if those who got “treated” were only 17 times more likely to kill themselves?
Psychiatric care to help them accept and understand their confusion could hardly do worse.
Catering to the illness does not cure it.
LikeLike
I’m calling out your assertion that ALL children with GD are 19 times more likely to commit suicide.
And not all illnesses have cures.
LikeLike
…”medical intervention for gender dysphoria is child abuse as they cannot consent, nor can their parents do so on their behalf, ”
But parents are sacrosanct. Just ask GOV Youngkin and DOE.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Do you know what the Mau Mau wars were about?
The British banned Female circumcision.
There are times when children must be protected from their parent’s delusions.
LikeLike
“There are times when children must be protected from their parent’s delusions.”
And there are times when CHILDREN should be protected form the delusions of OTHER’S parents.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Their parent’s delusions?”
Your standards are a very flexible thing.
A parent can keep a child from being vaccinated and you are fine with that. And we both know that Anti-vaxx is delusional. A parent MUST be informed if their child seeks counselling at school even if the child does not want them to know. But a parent acting on sound medical advice must not be allowed to approve a sound medical decision which THEY believe – and their doctors agree – is in the best interest of the child who desperately wants the treatment being discussed.
These chemical treatments which the Christofacists have outlawed are less effective the later they are delayed. A parent should have the right to protect their child from such harm. You are not much of Libertarian when you start demanding government control of personal medical decisions. IMHO.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Actually, the parents declining vaccine for young children were right.
Under 12, the original vaccine produces negative immunity against Omicron
And Lupron(more commonly used to chemically castrate sex offenders) permanently impairs sexual development.
Parents should not impose their delusions on children who cannot know what they are giving up.
LikeLike
“Parents should not impose their delusions on children who cannot know what they are giving up.”
Why you would call parents who are trying to deal with a known and diagnosed health issue “delusional” should be puzzling. With you it is not. If they see the world differently than you do, they are “delusional” and – probably – “corrupt.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Because transition doesn’t work.
The suicide rate and need for treatment for depression is every bit as high for those who transition as those who don’t.
So, if you have a treatment that doesn’t work but has catastrophic side effects, you let adults try it if they want, but you don’t apply it to children.
LikeLike
“Because transition doesn’t work.”
Because YOU say so?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Because there is no significant difference in outcome between those who have surgery and hormones and those who do not.
LikeLike
“Because there is no significant difference in outcome between those who have surgery and hormones and those who do not.”
Actually, there are wide differences in outcome BY INDIVIDUAL. Some regret it profoundly. Some rejoice. The point is that it this extreme treatment is not done lightly, consent is beyond fully informed, the parents are NOT “delusional,” and most importantly in this context – it is none of your business nor that of the government.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Is Female Genital Mutilation not the government’s business.
There is no difference in outcome.
LikeLike
“Is Female Genital Mutilation not the government’s business.”
As I said before when you raised this lame whatabout, FGM is not an approved medical treatment for a known medical problem. It is not comparable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is the surgical equivalent of puberty blockers.
Both end the possibility of a normal sex in the future.
LikeLike
“It is the surgical equivalent of puberty blockers.
Both end the possibility of a normal sex in the future.”
And both can involve sharp knives. So what? Lots of medical and surgical treatments of diagnosed medical issues CAN have undesired side effects. Does that mean they should be banned by law? Or does it mean that the physicians have a duty to obtain fully informed consent?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here is ana idea on our statement concerning “Theocratic motives”:
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/09/21/most-republicans-support-declaring-the-united-states-a-christian-nation-00057736
I don’t think the Founders would agree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nor would I.
But I would need to see the wording and context of the question. Most certainly Republicans would characterize the nation as predominantly Christian, but that does not mean that most would want, or tolerate, a theocracy.
But in the context of this thread, would you silence, or intimidate into silence, those who do want a theocracy? If you can’t defeat that notion in the marketplace of ideas, you need to work on your debating skills.
LikeLike
The questions are in the link.
LikeLike
Funny how “white male Christian” is constantly invoked by the left wing extremists as a go to derogatory description of someone they disagree with. I’m not religious at all but certainly do not buy into the trans fantasy world, especially on minors. It’s sick. Stay out of my daughter’s bathroom, showers and sports!!
LikeLike
“Stay out of my daughter’s bathroom, showers and sports!!”
Get a grip, Bob. You’re gonna pop a blood vessel.
What I was referring to was the growing numbers of people in this country who are in favor of the USA being designated a Christian Nation, a theocracy, if you will. This country was founded on the principle of freedom of and FROM religion. The First Amendment says that clearly. (Congress shall make no law….)
So to those who want to make this change, repeal parts of the First Amendment you disagree with. Give it a shot. That is what we keep being told.
LikeLike
What in the world are you talking about? I wasn’t responding to anything you w r ote.
LikeLike
“I wasn’t responding to anything you w r ote.”
So I am not allowed to comment on something I read here?
Like I said, you protest too much about too little.
LikeLike
…“white male Christian”…
I went back and reviewed the posts here and I did not see those words invoked anywhere.
Methinks the cisgender Caucasian male doth protest too much. 😇
LikeLiked by 1 person
Paul brought up Christian in this thread. White male Christian has been invoked over and over on this board and if you claim otherwise you lie like a pig.
LikeLike
All I said was it was not in THIS thread.
Take a Midol, for cryin’ out loud.
LikeLike
…”my own declines (old age is a bitch)”…
Remember, Mr. Roberts, getting old ain’t for sissies. 😉
LikeLike
Let’s not lose track of the fact that the issue is not whether the EFA is correct on the issue, it is whether it is OK for the government to intimidate them for expressing their opinion.
It damn sure is not.
LikeLike
Intimidation? Investigating some entity for illegal activities is NOT intimidation; it is the job of law enforcement when potential crimes are brought to their attention. Or does the law and order beliefs you claim to have only apply to those you agree with?
LikeLiked by 1 person
What illegal activities were they being investigated for?
LikeLike
“Corruption!”
LikeLiked by 1 person
“It damn sure is not.”
Intimidation.
Why do “conservative” organizations and leaders think the law is for other people?
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Let’s not lose track of the fact that the issue is not whether the EFA is correct on the issue, it is whether it is OK for the government to intimidate them for expressing their opinion.”
Exactly right.
LikeLike