Saturday Night Live Needs An Extreme Makeover

As a boomer who remembers the New York based "Saturday Night Live" from the beginning and watched the very first show, it has amazed me on the very, very few times I have tuned in since those first few seasons the "changes" which have occurred.

Known for its outrageous skits and occasional timely political commentary, it has taken a rather dark turn it appears as of late, and not in a good way.

Always, always liberal in its political focuses, that liberalism also has become simply irrelevance at this point in America's history, and its formerly "gross" humor not even very funny to a large segement of the population, it seems.

And some of the musical entertainment clearly even more far out and just as wacky and politically off the wall for any residing apparently outside New York (or L.A., its sister city).

Cases in point in just the few that I have watched for partial programs the last year (and this IS a show that starts at 10:30 or 11:30 in most of the country, but appears directed more so at a "youth" and younger audience with each decade who mostly are at home up late during the weekend - since as those young comics age also they routinely disappear into either spin offs of their characters in movies or eventual oblivion):

1. A skit in which Tina Fey as a teacher fantasizes over a pre-teenish "student" Justin Bieber(?), a Canadian pop star being marketed in the U.S. to pre-teen girls as "wholesome entertainment."

2. A skit in which a "loving family" mouth kissed mere strangers and extended family members (and their pets) to demonstrate their love for one another at the funeral of a relative, in which one of the family members licked and mouth kissed eventually the deceased laying in a coffin.

3. An entire segment on the Weekend Update segment this past week with Amy Poehler and Seth Myers addressing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policies of gay men and women in the military in the name of "equality." I wouldn't hesitate to guess that the comics and writers on the program support unlimited abortion rights for women under the guise of "privacy," but believe that the "privacy" of gay individuals now serving in the military doesn't also come under those same Constitutional provisions of such a personal and private issue as an individual's sexual preferences?

I mean, just how many in the military who are gay truly want "big brother" to have such intimate and personal information documented in their enlistment papers on government databases?

The rest of the segment was dominated by the blind Governor of New York, inside jokes on the New Yorker-Jerseyite relationship, and the Governor's past term of office and irrelevance at this point in time during the upcoming elections, and his disability with the Governor, of course, then making an appearance alongside the "imposter." None of which I'm sure the other 49 (48 outside Jersey) states would have any interest in as "inside jokes."

4. And also on this particular program, a pop tart star ala another Madonna dressed to Bob Mackie rhinestone excess in glittery teenage cheerleader style mini-dress with backup football players singing a song devoted to having a back seat teenage sex session and while singing the chorus then rubbing her legs suggestively promoting her "skin tight jeans?"

I mean the Bees and Blues Brothers have a place in the history and television archives for this 70's ground breaking comedy, but I just wonder what new drug they are smoking during those writing sessions?

The only segment that appeared even remotely funny was the impersonator of Will Smith ala Eddie Murphy.

Maybe "Home Improvement" needs to do an extreme makeover," from the ground up with new writers. Or better still...

"Live from (take your pick outside New York) it's Saturday Night!" just might clue them in as to what is politically relevant and comic, and just what is just so, so New York, and not "out there" but "in there" in truly messed up New York Gomorrah-land.

Definitely not for that ever-growing Tea Party crowd, or former Republicans and Democrats who are now independent of any political party affiliation.

Those Indians clearly came out with the better deal on this one.

The Supreme Court Does It Again: Desecrates The U.S. Constitution

The Supreme Court has done it again.

Desecrated the U.S. Constitution in a recent holding granting corporations (global ones, at that, since there was no distinction even made in their opinion between U.S. based or global corporate entities) the ability to contribute unlimited funds to candidates for state or federal office.

In a roundabout way, it did nothing more than reaffirm that under the First Amendment, the language regarding the rights of the "people" also can be interpreted to mean the "corporate" and that corporations are not property (which they most definitely are, since they can be bought and sold and for which many are publicly funded even at this point in our history, and even sold over a "global" exchange, building foreigners wealth and thus foreigners gaining now more and more influence in our political system progressively) but also persons.

Corporations cannot be both - people and property, but this decision in effect stated exactly that, as did the errant ruling which started this progression into corporate socialism way back when in effect inserting another entity under the Constitution and Bill of Rights the founders never intended, "corporate personhood." (Remember the Boston Tea Party and East India Company for a clue how they felt about global corporations, and thus granting privileges and immunities to corporate "sovereign" subjects of the "crown.")

What has happened to our Constitution, and a judiciary that has strayed so far from both the intent and actual language contained within that document resting not a mile from those hallowed halls?

Where are our lawyers being educated now in this country, and who is in charge of the teaching programs at our law colleges?

The American Bar Association, it appears, a British based association at that and carryover from Great Britain which appears that the agenda is reinstituting "progressively" British monarchial style sovereign rights and sovereign rule over the citizens of this country by now our federal (and state) governments without a new Constitutional Convention, or the "consent of the governed."

Amending the Constitution now even more progressively, without the power to so do, just goes to show the arrogance now of those on the Hill of all three branches of our government, and the political nature now of the U.S. Supreme Court which was supposed to be a "check" on the government with respect to Bill of Rights protections for the PEOPLE against the CORPORATE, especially commercial corporate entities as "commerce" to be regulated actually not given rights at all (since it does state "We the People" and not "We the Corporate") and definitely not a facilitator of the new government it is progressively instituting with each and every decision now coming down the pike as of late especially, "global corporate socialism."

How can you have a representative government of any nature when global and national companies can now donate massive sums throughout the nation in each and every district in order to facilitate their agendas, most of which are at the cost of the general public at large?

The founders understood that the entire basis of a representative government demanded that no candidate for any public office would be allowed to accept "backing" or "funding" for his political aspirations from any person or entity residing or with their legal "home office" domicile outside their legislative district.

Is that concept so totally "foreign" and convoluted for the U.S. Supreme Court justices, who are holders of doctorate degrees in the "law" mind you, to understand?

Where were these justices educated? Great Britain?

I would state that this case was purposely brought in order to set another unconstitutional "precedent" now throughout the nation, although the Supremes actually also have "legally" no power granted except to render decisions on the matters placed before it based on the facts of the particular case "at bar."

Not broad based precedent power for their decisions, but limited jurisdictional powers in both original and appellate jurisdictions, and even those provisions have progressively been misconstrued, broadened and thus also circumventing the Constitution now being made applicable in some form or another throughout each and every state down to now dictating and minimizing in again inserting or redefining the English language the provisions with respect to trials by jury for civil and criminal matters in some of their recent determinations.

While the court fails to hear lawful petitions brought before them on Bill of Rights issues by the people, or even such matters as the legal citizenship status of the holder of the highest office in the land, it accepted this case in order to once again circumvent the Constitution, and all those founders fought and died for.

A government "of the people, by the people, for the people" and not the commercial corporate interests in any manner whatsoever.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012204341.html

Political Incorrectness: MSM Continues Misdefinition of A Conservative

While gathering some research for additional evidence with respect to just how far afield our mainstream news sources and media have become, and nothing more now than branches of their owners and Boards of Directors political beliefs or both mainstream political parties, I came across an article and review of the new movie, "Avatar" directed by James Cameron.

In the review it indicated that several critics have made references to the content in labeling it as anti-war and pro-environmentalist although visually very entertaining.

Mr. Cameron is an avowed environmentalist that was also quoted as indicating that the United States has a habit of "raping natural resources and invading countries and displacing indigenous peoples without giving anything back."

The only thing I can state with that particular comment as a displaced Arizonan, whose political landscape has fundamentally changed into one of pro-liberalism due to the influx of mostly Californians from Mr. Cameron's home state who have left theirs due to most of the laws which have been passed due to the liberalism which have progressively bankrupted them, and now in Arizona creating the very same scenario, along with those from Canada and the East Coast, with their demands also for jacuzzi's and fountains in the desert, and propensity to also be one of the states in which most of those "displaced" refugees are also funneled after many of the prior wars of the last few decades, it would appear the same comment would apply to what is now occuring in this country with the displacement of many natural born and naturalized Americans from their jobs and homes due to now "globalization" and not only starting these wars and then taking in those refugees, but providing many with benefits and tax breaks that the average American is not entitled to.

Such as the Bosnians who attended my children's school (mostly with parents in the "science and technology" fields) and who were given brand new cars in order to attend classes.

But what was really unbelieveable in the article was that it also referred to the fact that Ed Morrissey, a supposed "Conservative" commentator, had mentioned on the website "Hot Air" that most "conservatives" would be staying away from the movie due to its anti-war stances.

I would like to know just what Mr. Morrissey's definitions of "conservative" are, because a true American Conserve-ative does believe in preserving the Constitution as it is written with the intent of the founders ever present, unless lawfully amended through the amendment process, which also includes acknowleding the 9th Amendment and placing any and all such amendments before the people of this country for their voice and vote.

And believes in Constitutional interpretation with respect to the Supreme Court's powers and duties in the common law and American jurisprudence precedent which stood for over a hundred years in "Res Ipsa Loquitor" or "the thing as it is written (or speaks)."

Not inserting words, or amending it without going through the formal amendment process in any and all such "opinions" and determinations, such as expanding presidential or Congressional power and authority without any basis in Constitutional provision.

And that Supreme Court decisions are applicable only to the "case at bar" or facts of the matter before it. Not broad based precedent throughout the land with respect to American Bill of Rights issues, especially.

And since this country was founded on the "just war" doctrines and made provision for "defense" of THIS country, would also dispute that any true American Conserve-ative would still be in support of the Middle East War on Terror since it is not at all at this point a truly "just war" nor a "defensive" one.

Conservatives believe in conserving both the blood and treasure of this nation, and not exploiting its people and their "property" for global gain or the "greater good."

Which is actually more global communism which is where we are about now, not American conservatism.

Facilitating wars in order to increase dominion most of all in the name of "democracy," a form of government the U.S. fundamentally is also not.

Barry Goldwater, the former Senator and U.S. presidential candidate from my former home state of Arizona, was a Conservative - probably THE Conservative of the boomer generation and before.

Who, even after the whipping he took in the 1964 election branded a "war monger," actually became more Conservative in his elder years in calling that war what it actually was - a horrendous mistake that was entered into also as our first major interventionist conflict (although Korea also somewhat) and for which the boomer generation has never seen a true end to war in some part of the world, particularly the Middle East since World War II and which continuing conflicts are based on a British agreement and accord, no less, entered into between a British Lord and European banker even prior to World War I (the Balfour Doctrine).

He must be watching a lot of Fox, since it appears his definition aligns more with the British version of "Conservative."

Sonia Sotomayor: The Court Makes Policy?

Yesterday Barack Obama announced his selection for the vacating position of Justice David Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Not surprisingly, Mr. Obama as the ultimate "politician" used as his criteria for selection not merit, or published opinions balanced against the Constitutional basis or findings - but instead his views on balancing the Court with a member who was in his mind "politically" correct, and an activist in their interpretation of U.S. law.

In other words, one who would not rock the boat on his political agendas and policies, rather than one as an intended "check" on those policies in order to retain some semblance of our Constitution and intended form of government.

And who did he choose?

A member of the judiciary who identifies herself as a "Hispanic-American" woman, educated at Princeton University and Yale Law School (both rather "liberal" teaching institutions with respect to the law, which focuses more on judge made or case law than it does our Constitution or history, and questioning some of the U.S. Supreme Court's rather progressively unconstitutional decisions).

Princeton, Yale, Harvard and Stanford are the equivalent of Oxford in England, in teaching that the government is "sovereign," and diametrically opposed to the actual foundation and provisions within America's own Constitution, where it is the people and Constitution which are "sovereign" and the government at all levels beneath and limited by its express provisions and terms.

Look for Obama now to push for an illegal immigrant amnesty ala George Bush, no matter that the border state residents are now involved in an undeclared war of their own down on the border, and losing their homes and lives at an increasing rate due to the federal negligence in getting our southern borders secured now almost eight years post 9/11.

Mr. Obama is more concerned with "looking good," than doing the right thing, or following the law at any level.

And appears the Ivy League schools themselves just may need some political "balancing" in their teaching staff, so that the practice of law in this country returns to the profession it once was, and not the political industry it has become. And without any oversight other than by a British carryover and political organization, the American Bar Association.

It seems the "dumbing down" of America is nowhere more evident than at the graduate school level, if Mr. Obama and Ms. Sotomayor and their views of "the Law" are any indication.