I think your program on Sunday is great. A political oasis of sorts given all the BS spewing forth from everywhere else on cable and mainstream media. I have urged everyone I know to go to your website and to watch your program. The “sheople” need to engage some critical thinking about what is happening before our very eyes…your program is an important part of making this happen…Thanks patriot…Kathy

Andy, Ed, and the UnCommon Sense TV Crew,

Thank you for your years of dedicated efforts towards the education of the citizenry and your perpetual agitation towards helping the nation to regain at least a portion of self-government from the dictates of the Neo-Con agenda. Events like the 2006 election results couldn’t have happened without your efforts and your many compatriots around the country. I was glad to see the recent Vanity Fair article (entitled “Neo Culpa”) — but, I think that it was a calculated decision on their part (the Neo-Cons) to distance themselves from the now obvious consequences of their “dictates”.

You and your contemporaries across the nation truly did a magnificent job and you should be proud of your accomplishments. I hope now that everyone can help do their part in insuring a meaningful outcome in the fight for “net neutrality” and support for public access.

Your Friend and Supporter,
RE

A viewer comments on a matter we have been contacted about before…

I was watching one of your shows online and I believe your American flag is being displayed incorrectly.

“When the flag is displayed in a manner other than by being flown from a staff, it should be displayed flat, whether indoors or out. When displayed either horizontally or vertically against a wall, the union should be uppermost and to the flag’s own right, that is, to the observer’s left. When displayed in a window it should be displayed in the same way, that is with the union or blue field to the left of the observer in the street. When festoons, rosettes or drapings are desired, bunting of blue, white and red should be used, but never the flag.”

I understand you are trying to defend the constitution on your show, but it doesnt help when you display the flag incorrectly.

Dear [Viewer],

You are absolutely correct about the correct display of flags against a wall. However, although it may not be obvious on TV, the flags we display in the studio when we produce the show ARE on staffs, which are mounted on metal frame towers to either side of the stage set. They are not against a wall or a backdrop, but are in the middle of open space. We are well aware of the point you are making about correct display of the flag, and we once had a phone call from a viewer about this subject. Thank you for your concern about this. However, we have not forgotten the lessons that every child should know from elementary school about proper and respectful display of the flag.

We hope that you find the information and perspective we present on the show helpful. Our main concern is democracy, and defending the principles of a democratic republic. We are working to promote the restoration of constitutional government and the expansion of the democratic rights of people (as opposed to the legal fiction of transnational corporations being considered people).

Thanks for your concern, for taking the time to express it, and for being courteous about it.

- Ed Lacy, USTV Media

Doesn’t the Bible admonish against bearing false witness? I suppose that the viewer failed to notice that we were not criticizing Christianity per se, but pointing out that the United States was not founded on religion. The points we made in our programs on religion and the state were not against Christianity but against false claims about the founding of the nation by people who purport to be devout Christians. The whole point of our program was to defend the democratic structure of the nation in general and one of the key principles that, in particular, differentiate the United States from theocracies such as contemporary Iran or the interregnum (Cromwellian) England of the 17th Century.

- Ed Lacy, USTV Media

Thank you for your attacks on Christians and some of their silly leaders. We (Muslim) have been saying your points for years! Where have you been? You are helping us to gain much needed support. Thank you again. Soon you too will convert to Islam (I hope soon) as we represent the future of the world.

Our plans for those who do not convert are not so happy. But when it is all done you will be much more happy in your new world. Imagine no more war! Only praise to Allah! We are over 8 million strong here in this country (USA) and already have 50 million in Europe. The time grows near! PRAISE ALLAH!

One of our great leaders Moammar Gadhafi who leads the Libyan people to great things says:

“Some people believe that Mohammed is the prophet of the Arabs or Muslims alone. This is a mistake. Mohammed is the prophet of all people. He superseded all previous religions! If Jesus were alive when Mohammed was sent, he would have followed him. All people must be Muslims”.

Please hear his true words. If not then you must suffer the infidels fate! This is not good. I will send to you good people and your staff directions to web sites that will help you to the right way so thet you will not suffer as many infidels will.

Continue to condem christian beliefs. Your awards await you! DO NOT LET DOWN ALLAH!

I will direct my friends to this web site as it is good (as is Fatah) for all Muslims.

PRAISE ALLAH!

- HAMED

This person makes the attempt of being cute with his silly moniker of “Hamed.” I have to wonder about the distinct possibility of real psychological projection at work here, considering the familiarity and similarity of this rhetoric with powerful sects in American culture, most notably the Christian Dominionist and the rapture cultists. (For more on these ever-present entities we recommend the works of Chris Hedges, as well as www.theocracywatch.org).

So does this viewer really believe we are in a legitimately global ‘crusade’ against Islam itself? If so, which brand? Shia? Sunni? Maybe this will help explain to the viewer some of the differences. What is scary about this is the fact that important policy makers in Washington, those responsible for this ‘crusade’ and our Middle East war policy, clearly have no clue as to what the heck this is all about. Truly incompetent and irresponsible people. But then, that is the M.O. of the GOP ruling authorities.

Of particular curiosity is the implied dig at Islam for supposedly promising global peace only after they have “Islamitized” the entire planet and forced compulsion amongst all to worshipping the religion. How does that compare to the christianists who claim Jesus will only return after global armageddon, which will then usher in a 1,000 years of peace in a world of only believers?

And are we really opposing radical Islamic fundamentalism, or simply incorporating such types of intolerant hatred into our own culture? People like those who run Jesus Camp are not in opposition to radical muslim extremism as much as they are mirroring it.

Jesus Camp

“The children at the Kids on Fire summer camp are intent as they pray over a cardboard cutout of President George Bush. They raise their hands in the air and sway, eyes closed, as they join the chant for “righteous judges”. Tears stream down their faces as they are told that they are “phonies” and “hypocrites” and must wash their hands in bottled water to drive out the devil.

The documentary film Jesus Camp follows three children at the Kids on Fire Pentecostal summer camp in the small city of Devil’s Lake, North Dakota.

…At one point Pastor Fischer equates the preparation she is giving children with the training of terrorists in the Middle East. “I want to see young people who are as committed to the cause of Jesus Christ as the young people are to the cause of Islam,” she tells the camera. “I want to see them radically laying down their lives for the gospel, as they are over in Pakistan and Israel and Palestine.”

They cry, pray to Bush and wash out the devil - welcome to Jesus Camp

A Christian madrassa for the Jesus Jugend.

- Andy Valeri, USTV Media

Not sure to what to make of this, considering this was the entirety of the comment, with no identification, contact information or even explanation for the purpose of its being sent.

“What ever happened to the ‘might of the many used to help protect the rights of the one’?

It seems to be an attempt to suggest that collective actions that limit personal action are abuses against individuals. This is the common refrain of people who have forgotten that their rights to swing their arm ends where other people’s noses begin.

- Ed Lacy
USTV Media

I appreiciate very much your broadcasting the interview with Phil Donahue. Phil speaks the truth, I miss viewing his TV program, and daily stimuli.

He still has that elusive “IT,” and although starting to show his age, he still is very much with it. Oprah or Jon Stewart should employ, or subsidize/sponser a T.V. or radio program for him. Ralph Nader and Phil Donahue should partner in something…anything. They need to spank their agents, or get new ones, to stay in the limelight. Americans need to be re-awakened, the few that aren’t totally apathetic. I guess my political science instructor in high school was correct when he expressed to the class one day, “The Masses are Asses.”

I’ve placed your web site on my favorites list.

Thanks again,
Frank A.
Portland, Oregon

Occasionally we hear from viewers who don’t share (or understand) our perspectives and purposes.

You are trying to project your own fears upon your audience—wasn’t it Franklin D. Roosevelt who said that the only thing to fear is fear itself? Why then are you portraying George Bush as some unstoppable monster, when it’s clear he has already become a lame-duck president?

The time to fear the power of the President was in the 90’s, when President Clinton and Attorney General Reno decided to kill American citizens and destroy private property in Waco, Texas.

Are you guys afraid of government surveillance? How long was Randy Weaver spied on? All he did was attempt to sell a shotgun, and he ended up losing his wife and child in an FBI/ATF shootout. And then, Ms. Reno struck again in Florida, when she and Clinton authorized a military exercise to remove a young Hispanic child from his relatives’ house. The real reason for the invasion was that the government suspected a cache of arms was hidden somewhere in the house. It was faulty intelligence that led to that egregious invasion of privacy and unwarranted search and seizure.

Yes, the 90’s were years to fear the government. While the Clinton administration hounded American citizens, it did nothing to stop terrorist attacks against American interests. The World Trade Center was first bombed in 1993. Remember? Our Marines were attacked abroad–remember? How about the attack against the USS Cole—does that ring a bell? And, I still have the article I clipped from the Dayton Daily News, revealing that the September 11 attacks against the World Trade Center were actually planned in 1996! What was our government doing about that? Maybe they were just too busy chasing and killing Americans.

Sandy Berger, former Clinton security advisor, said in 1997 that “Clinton might look like a hero to rally-’round-the-flag Congressfolk if he hit Iraq. It would zoom his ratings, spruce up his legacy.”. When France, Russia, and China hesitated to support the use of force against Saddam Hussein, John Kerry bellowed “Where’s their backbone? It’s very disappointing. They’re permitting Saddam to think he has the right to do as he pleases.”. So, Clinton would have been the hero for taking out Saddam, but Bush is the bad guy for doing it. Go figure.

I would rather live under the Bush administration any day, rather than return to the oppression of Democratic leadership. They seek to strip personal rights and ownerships (such as the Constitutionally-protected right to bear arms), while they try to appease those who seek to destroy us. We don’t need another over-sexed paranoid running this country, and we need fewer Chicken Littles telling us the sky is falling. We need another Charles Martel, who defeated Islamic radicals at the battle of Tours, or another Winston Churchill, who predicted the rise of both Nazi fascism and Soviet Communism, and suggested we stand up to them both.

God bless Republican America.

Dear Viewer,

If we believed George W. Bush to be an “unstoppable monster” we wouldn’t bother to pursue the remedies that we are applying to the problem of his quasi-legal presidency. Bush is not a lame-duck president. By definition, a lame-duck in politics is someone whose successor has already been chosen, but has not yet taken office. Unless you know something we don’t about the progress of the ongoing subversion of the democratic election process in this country, you cannot accurately refer to Bush as a lame-duck. There are still many reasons to be gravely concerned about the fact that Mr. Bush occupies the White House. His unconstitutional usurpations of power and reckless disregard for both diplomacy and the politically inconvenient realities of intelligence data threaten the freedom and security of all Americans, even those Americans among the boards of his transnational corporate sponsors. He is very likely the most irresponsible man to ever hold the office of President of the United States.

Regarding Bill Clinton, it never ceases to amaze me that some people assume that anyone who is critical of the Busheviks must therefore be an admirer of the Clintons. It should be clear from the values of democratic republicanism that we consistently espouse on UnCommon Sense TV and on the ustvmedia website that we found MANY flaws with Clinton’s presidency, and that we disagree with most of what both he and Mrs. Clinton have done since they left the White House. That said, I for one am EXTREMELY TIRED of the Busheviks’ pathetic attempts to blame their failures on Clinton and justify their choices and ensuing consequences by comparing them to the politics and policies of the Clinton administration (or more commonly to their own alternate narratives and spin about the Clinton Presidency). This pusillanimous finger-pointing is both whiny and intentionally deceptive for reasons whose numbers are too vast to address in an email (a large wonky book of facts and analysis might be adequate to the task).

By the way, the time to pay attention to abuse of the power by a President, legitimately elected or otherwise, is ALL OF THE TIME! (not just when there is one in office who philosophically discomforts you)

Yes, I do remember when our Marines were attacked abroad. It was in Beirut in 1983, right before Reagan orderd them to CUT AND RUN. I also remember that after Clinton ordered bombings in Somalia and Afghanistan, Republican mambers of Congress were saying that Clinton exaggerated the threat and using the spin/buzzphrase “wag the dog” to build “political capital” for their treasury-draining impeachment boondoggle. Then there is the fact that during the Clinton administration the CIA and the State and Defense Departments had relentlessly compiled a huge database of information about Al Qaeda and other terrorist threats which the incoming Bush cabinet failed to act on and almost entirely ignored.

There, you see? Anyone can play “gotcha” with foreign policy. The truth is that all foreign policy is based on risk, because it involves people and governments whose economic and political interests often conflict with ours. That is why we need to make certain that we do not make decisions that could have long and profound consequences without doing the HARD WORK of careful analysis.

Another global threat to our values of freedom and security is global corporatism, which has done at least as much damage to our nation as foreign terrorism and has in fact stimulated the development of Islamist terrorism around the globe. This damage by global corporatists includes, but is not limited to, the many deaths and maimings of Americans and others, the loss of our reputation in other nations because of corporate abuse of their people and resources, and the corruption of democratic processes both here at home and around the world.

And don’t even start trying to spin the above list of facts as “liberal whining.” These are problems we can actually solve, simply by reigning in the avaricious impulses of corporations with policies that protect the PUBLIC interest and the political commons and punish those who attempt to subvert them.

These corporatist crime syndicates (oil companies, tobacco companies, financiers, arms manufacturers . . .) try to deflect attention from their behavior by using the media they own (all the major networks, the majority of newspapers, and the major internet service providers) and the politicians they own (the Republican Party, the Democratic Leadership Council, Bush and his cabinet, etc.) to distract us with spin and celebrity pablum.

If we hold these unpatriotic, un-American, selfish, greedy, deceivers accountable, not only can we restore and expand on the democratic institutions and traditions of our country, but we can go a long way toward disproving the propaganda that is spewed about us by the likes of Al Qaeda. By the way, where is Osama bin Laden?

- Ed Lacy
USTV Media

A viewer takes USTV to task for supposed ill-informed commentary regarding the nature of church and state in our republic.

You guys aren’t funny or clever or even well informed. You can smugly dismiss the opposition’s arguments, but that doesn’t make you right. Pat Robertson was correct that “separation of church and state” do not exist in the Constitution. The words simply aren’t there. Read it. The 1st Amendment has two clauses relating to religion, free exercise and establishment. This means Congress cannot establish a religion or prevent the free exercise thereof. Establishment has been taken to mean a “separation of church and state” based on Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists, which is not a legal document, but a letter. Now, I’m not saying we shouldn’t have separation of church and state. I think it’s a pretty good policy. But the Constitution simply doesn’t demand it. I’m sorry if that upsets you, but it’s a fact. So you can put up all the nutjob Pat Robertson quotes you can dig up, and declare that this proves that Christians are hatemongers and want to destroy Democracy if you want, but that doesn’t make it accurate. And no one’s trying to create a theocracy except the Islamofascists like Bin Laden and Zarqawi. You should try taking a look at the world that they want to create. Pull your collective heads out and you might realize who the real threats to our way of life in a liberal democracy are.

Dear (Viewer),

Given your assessment of our mental acumen, America is lucky that the principle of separation of church and state rests not on our wit, but on the Constitution, its authors and signers, and the affirmations of constitutional principle by our Judicial branch.

It is true that Jefferson wrote a letter wherein the phrase “separation of church and state” was coined, and that the phrase itself does not appear in the U.S. Constitution. However, Jefferson’s eloquence was not the first statement by a founder explaining the original intent to keep church and state separate, nor was it the most significant. The primary author of the Constitution, James Madison, wrote the following, two years before the Constitution was ratified by the states:

From Memorial and Remonstrance
Against Religious Assessments
Written by James Madison, 1785

Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.

Granted, Madison’s language here is structurally ornate by contemporary standards, but persevere; the meaning is quite clear, and serves as the surest possible indication of the intent of the founders. The founders’ intent was to ensure that the government provided no legislative, and thus no material, aid to religion.

In addition to Madison’s explication of the philosophical underpinnings that inspired the First Amendment, there is also Supreme Court precedent affirming the relevence of Jefferson’s statement in his letter to the Danbury Baptists. Regardless of what contortions might be applied to eighteenth century prose by people with specific agendas relating to their own beliefs, judicial review, the responsibility of the Supreme Court for the interpretation of the Constitution, has been settled law for over two centuries, since shortly after the Constitution was ratified.

Below is relevant case language, written over fifty years ago, in which the unconstitutionality of an attempt by a local school board to infringe against free exercise by imposing an establishment was clarified:

Everson v. Board of Education [of Ewing Township, Montana] 330 U.S. 1, 15-16., 1947:

“The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State.’ ”

Although Everson v. Board is not the only case in which this principle is affirmed, and neither the first nor last, it is the most explicit in its clarification.

Also noteworthy, if tangentially relevant is the content of Article II, which confers the power to make treaties, and gives treaties the binding force of law. This is important because in the text of a 1796 United States treaty with the Barbary States, The Treaty of Tripoli, is found the following:

“. . . the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion”.

While this treaty language, although it has the force of law, does not explicitly reinforce the establishment clause per se, it begs the question: Is there any religious foundation of the U.S. government, and if so what is it? The answers are self-evident: If not based on Christianity, it must be construed to have no religious foundation. This is important because any suggestion that the founders did not mean what they wrote in the Constitution and in the overwhelming preponderance of their letters and other writings is dashed by this Congressionally ratified treaty.

Conversely, and wishful thinking and protestations aside, there is precious little writing by any of the founders to suggest that they intended our republic to have a pious tenor, and none whatsoever by Madison or Jefferson, authors of the the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, respectively. Those who insist that the founders were Christians, or meant for the United States to be guided by the principles of Christianity or any other religion, inevitably rely on peripheral figures to argue their case.

Regarding contemporary questions, I agree with you that fundamentalist Islamic radicals promote a vision that is inimical to democracy and freedom of conscience. One cannot, however, objectively read the totality of the statements of either Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell without concluding that they are enemies of democracy and freedom of conscience as well. Perhaps they are not doing what the radical Islamists are doing, trying to create a theocracy as you say, because our Constitution and traditions of law stand in their way. It is reasonable to speculate that if they were operating in a different millieu, they might be behaving much more like their Islamic counterparts. Luckily, we have not had to experience that different scenario.

You should know that neither Andy nor myself are athiests or materialists. I consider the spiritual dimension of my life to be equivalent to what Plato described as the first form, the foundational form upon which all else rests. That is my attempt at understanding the universe, and although I think that we humans, mere mortals that we are, cannot comprehend even the full material extent of the universe, never mind the extramaterial dimensions that are apparently integral to it, there is more to existence than the material.

I do not, however have any desire to impose my limited apprehension of existence on anyone else, nor do they have the right to impose, even to the slightest degree, their limited apprehensions upon me, as I am certain that their understandings, regardless of how steeped in any religious traditions they may be, have no more epistemological validity or authority than mine. That is one of the beauties of being an American and of enjoying the protections of the Constitution that the founders bequeathed us.

God help us if we squander the Constitution because of spiritual hubris.

Ed Lacy
UnCommon Sense TV Media

I saw your show the other night on channel 57 in Fort Wayne Indiana and for me and my family who serve in the military, I thank you. Here is a letter I just sent to the Journal gazette: Please keep up the good work…our nation needs you.
Thank You.
Mike Boetjer

Out of touch with North East Indiana

I can only surmise that the February 12, 2006 article you printed ‚”Follow Souder in Disclosing earmarks”, which portrayed Representative Mark Souder’s congressional record in a positive light can only mean that you are Totally out of touch with North East Indiana, or just a paid writer, maybe living in Washington D.C and your only redeeming quality is that the Journal Gazette still publishes your articles. If you would have done any research you would know that this congressman has voted lock step with President Bush on his failed war policies, and for every policy that has sent Indiana Jobs out of Indiana CAFTA, NAFTA. Indiana Manufacturing Job level is at 1991 levels. He has also voted to send more money to the Middle East (Palestinians known terrorist) and our enemies (oh these monies have been sent to them not just earmarked) during his tenure than he has sent to the local school districts. I would not have written this but your total detachment from and disregard for the people in North East Indiana, Indiana as a whole, the sweat and blood of our children who serve in the military and to the shame and sweat of those who have lost jobs in Indiana to other countries, has screamed out for a voice. I might suggest also that our Senator Lugar who has no one running against him for reelection has a record of supporting Indiana just as well. Maybe you could research this and find out why no one is running against Senator Lugar. Any way you should at least visit the state you claim to represent in your writings from time to time maybe check the Fort Wayne Alliance Web page statistics, at least give a cursory attempt to research what you are writing about and printing.

Michael Boetjer
Double Blue Star Father
Former Captain, U.S. Army
Fort Wayne, Indiana

Comments posted by a USTV viewer in response to our program on the question of “What Is Patriotism?” (USTV List of Programs)

I’d say patriotism, if it is something that must be talked about and affirmed, does no good whatsoever.

The various dictionary definitions of patriotism are about what you would expect.

patriotism: love for or devotion to one’s country

The real question is, what is patriotism good for? What does it do? Some optimists will say patriotism inspires them to improve their country, to make it more liberal, kinder and gentler, or whatever. But while they may define it that way personally, as linguists would say that’s a prescriptive definition, i.e. wishful thinking.

I submit that the descriptive definition, meaning the way people generally understand it, is that you love your country as is. Patriotism says “we are separate from other countries, and we are better.” Nobody waves the flag to say “It’s a small, round world, and everyone is equal.” And this patriotism only does one thing: inspire people to war. (And I suppose also to root for our team at the Olympics, which were invented by the Greeks as a surrogate for war.)

If we are invaded, as opposed to being the aggressor, then Americans will see their way of life as better than the invaders’, and they will fight to remain a separate nation. But that sort of patriotism comes naturally. It does not need pep talks. When patriotism comes to you as a pressure from others, it is corrupt. Kings and Presidents throughout history have needed some powerful psychology to convince people to die horrible deaths for petty causes. I can think of several flavors: fear, hatred, duty, honor, glory, and patriotism. Rubbish, all.

So when I hear it suggested that it is my patriotic duty not to question the government when it decides we are at war, I don’t disagree. Yes, that IS patriotic, but it’s not democratic, and it’s not wise. I would even say it’s un-American, as a personality trait. If Americans are proud of one thing, I always thought it was individualism, and patriotism is inherently collective. The typical American, I would have guessed, is happy to be free but a little embarrassed by patriotism.

Incidentally, the Merriam-Webster definition of ‘patriot’ is a little more interesting.

patriot: one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests

That’s quite a bit closer to the John Ashcroft definition, the one appropriate to the Patriot Act.

Any one else have a take on this?