Sunday, June 2, 2013



As yous know, ordinarily I post blog bits here at ‘Ferret-Faced Fascist Friends’ in which I yak, Yak, and YAK about the subject at hand. I dictate what we’re gonna address, and then I do a lot of thinkin’ an’ yakkin’ about it – explaining my viewpoint to yous, telling yous WHAT I think about it and WHY I think what I do about it.

It’s a pretty good, time-tested system that often leads to some really great discussions in the comment sections.

But this time, I want to turn that system on its head – turn it upside down – just to see what we get. So, here’s the plan:

I finally acquired all of the DVDs of the television series ‘ALL IN THE FAMILY’ that I hoped to own, and for several months now, I’ve been working my way through them, season by season (Seasons 1 - 8). As of this post, I am currently up to Season 6, Disc 3, Episode 17.

Archie Bunker: Wit And/Or Wisdom?
I would certainly like to know your thoughts and opinions about ‘ALL IN THE FAMILY’ in a general sense: Did you like it? Why or why not?

But even more so, I would like you to share with me, in the comment section below, YOUR thoughts and opinions about ONE PARTICULAR SCENE. I do NOT want to lead anyone in any way, so I am going to keep my own ideas completely to myself... for now. After I believe that I have pretty much heard from all of my regular readers in the comment section below, only THEN will I add my own comment and reveal what I think / believe about this particular scene.

This scene comes from Season 3, Disc 1, Episode 1, titled ‘Archie And The Editorial’. And here it is:
Alright, what are your thoughts about that? If you want to focus on the acting, the lighting, the sound, that’s OK. But what I’m primarily interested in is your take on the “ideas” that are being presented there. Dig deep...

Tell me what you think the writer was attempting to convey to the viewer. What concepts are being presented there? How effectively do you believe the ideas were expressed? What do you, personally, think about them? Agree? Disagree? Have no clue? Do you prefer cartoons like The Road Runner, Scooby-Doo, and Underdog?

BONUS QUESTION: Without looking it up online to find out, do you remember, or can you guess, how the episode ‘Archie And The Editorial’ ends?

Please, Peeps, respond ASAP. Then I will put in my own .02 cents worth at the very bottom of the comment section. Thanks, yous all!

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.



  1. Okay, let's take this a step at a time. First, Archie has and always will be a hero to me. Not because he's always right, but his heart leads him in right directions that his brain just can't wrap around. (and of course, his mouth lags WAY behind.)

    Second, I think I had that wit and wisdom book once upon a time.

    Third, like most of what was presented in AITF, you have to be SMART enough to watch it. The producers gave Archie just enough rope to where someone COULD find him reasonable; then they would cover him in all the unnecessary BS to make it look like only an idiot would believe it. Then they through on the pinko commie atheist who applied his layer of self-righteousness to make it complete. Of course they would give him just enough "feet of clay" to make it look fair and balanced. All in all, if you were a "low information voter", it was a good means of indoctrinating people in "right bad, left good". If you were SMART, however, it wasn't hard to see through the propaganda and see Archie for what he really was- an odd mixture of a good, right-hearted man who was also a victim of his era and upbringing.

    Finally, as to his points, I'd say the "effectiveness" of gun control in Chicago and DC, not to mention the soldier who just got chopped up in the UK, are good evidence that Archie might just have something there...

    Thanks for the good comment, my friend. It was hardly a superficial analysis.

    I never had that 'WIT & WISDOM' book back in the day, but I'd love to have a copy now. I imagine it's pretty downright entertaining. (My parents did have an "Archie Bunker For President" mug way back when.)

    If any more thoughts about this come to you later, which you'd like to express, please feel more than free to return and leave an 'Addendum' comment - as many as you please, in fact.

    Everyone - old readers, new readers, EVERYONE - is invited to post as many comments here as they'd like to. I will have my say at the end.

    Incidentally, CW, the CD has arrived and I expect to have it in the mail to you tomorrow or Tuesday morning at the latest.

    Thanks for your input, Bro.

    ~ D-FensDogg
    'Loyal American Underground'

    1. About all I can think of to add is that you can look at what happened on my Communism and Obama for dummies part two and see what happened when the commies no longer controlled the guns... they quickly became non-commies.

      Control of such things is only necessary when the government is doing something that makes it fear private citizens with weapons.

    2. CWM ~

      Would I be correct in assuming you essentially disagree with this?... GUNS AND PEOPLE – Part 1 Of 4

      I read your Part 2 on Communism and Obama the other day, and am looking forward to reading the final installment this Thursday.

      I was just packaging your disc (along with 4 bottle caps that you may or may not already have). I should definitely be mailing it tomorrow morning, so be watching your mailbox.

      ~ D-FensDogg
      ‘Loyal American Underground’

    3. I wouldn't want to say I disagree with something on reading just part one, but here are some points.

      Second amendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

      First of all, what is well-regulated? Is it what we have now, with all the disorganization and gun-show loopholes? No. Is it idiot Bloomberg trying to eliminate handguns by manipulation of ammunition regulations? No.

      What is a militia? the National Guard? Certainly not in the Founders' day. Is there supposed to be the contrast (to the modern mind) between "a well-regulated militia" and "the people"?

      My opinion only: I see that the people, organized or not, need to be regulated to some extent. I am not rabid NRA. I don't think anybody in the private realm really needs a functioning assault weapon. Collectors, schmollectors. Do I think the government should have a national database to look at what kind of person gets a concealed-carry permit? Uneasily, yes, only because the IRS thing has taught us that anything under control will be politicized and abused.

      Here in our town today, we have the story of a man on his porch being robbed at gunpoint by two other men. But the man had a gun, too, and as a result he is alive (though wounded) and one perp is dead. Good thing? Hell yeah. But only necessary because political correctness has carved the balls from our police dept., and the thugs out there have no fear of anything. If cops could/would patrol high crime (and not surprisingly, high-ethnic) areas without having to worry about the Reverend Blowmedown complaining about racial profiling and irresponsible parents and friends crying about "what a good boy" the deceased is... but that's not where we're at.

      If we don't have citizens with CCPs, trained in the proper use of a weapon and able to use it properly without being persecuted by prosecutors without the juevos to go after the real criminals, honest citizens would not stand a chance.

      Does that sound Old West? Sure, but that's what PC gets us. You cannot hug thugs into productive lives. You have to inspire them. And we've let it go so long the only inspiration they'll accept is down a gun barrel.

      Do I carry? No, because I know I couldn't hit an elephant at three paces even with training and practice. But I have friends that live in the high crime areas that would probably be dead except the neighbors know they are well-armed and willing to fire. And thsts the Martin take.

    4. Thanks for 'The Martin Take'.

      Actually, I didn't necessarily mean for you to read ONLY that Part 1; I figured it would just get you started on the series.

      However... MY error. I didn't really mean to alter the focus from the 'All In The Family' scene, which is EXACTLY what I did when I brought in another (outside) viewpoint related to the general theme but not to the specific scene.

      Nevertheless, Brother Martin, thanks for the good response. There certainly are myriad ways of viewing the Gun Control subject, and even amongst anti-Communism "conservatives" there is a great deal of disagreement.

      ~ D-FensDogg
      'Loyal American Underground'

  3. Don't tell me you were Lionel's white step-brother in "All in the Family". Somehow, I wouldn't doubt it for a second if you casually mentioned that too.

    I haven't seen that show in years, but it was one of my favorites. I was usually distracted by Sally Struthers and her... "attributes" Come to think of it, I had the same problem when I watched Dallas and Charlene Tilton made an appearance. Seems like a short, blonde, top-heavy pattern is emerging here.

    I always thought "All in the Family" was a thought-provoking show that pushed the limits, and opened the debate on subjects that were rarely discussed on TV sitcoms back in the 70's. What Archie had to say was often what the viewers would be thinking, although they would probably never admit to it outside of their own living room.

    I doubt there are many television writers who are NRA members, so the slant in Archie's editorial is no surprise. (Not sure if that's true, but I'm stickin' with it for now.) The writer starts him out on track and then derails his editorial with the typical Archie "half-baked" thought of arming airline passengers. It is a sitcom, and it is funny. But it reminded me of a similar thought I had after the orange-headed dude shot up that theater in Colorado. I asked myself if I would feel safer if everyone in the theater was armed. The point was just to drive some sort of logical thought process, in my own mind, on the issue of gun control. Maybe the intent of Archie's editorial, in the writer's mind, was to promote the same logical thought process within the viewing audience.

    Or, maybe the writer was just going for the laugh.


    1. TWO SIG NIGHT ~
      Hey, great to hear from ya... it's been a little while, and I feared maybe you had abandoned me.

      Still following the Monkey with his every appearance.

      Earlier tonight I was thinking I'd Email ya. I owe SO MANY friends Emails. (Like Lagunitas, I "suck".) But then someone suggested we watch some 'All In The Family' episodes, and there went most of my computer time for the night.

      Anyway, if I don't get an Email to ya soon, then I "triple-dog suck!" (Notice I skipped right over the "double-dog suck" and went straight to the "triple-dog"? That's 'cause I know the movie 'A Christmas Story' so well.)

      >>... I always thought "All in the Family" ... opened the debate on subjects that were rarely discussed on TV sitcoms back in the 70's.

      That it did for sure, and big time!

      Ha! No, I never appeared on 'All In The Family' ('AITF'). When this particular episode aired, I was still in high school.

      I was about to write that I thought 'AITF' had become 'Archie Bunker's Place' by the time I had graduated from school and started doing that kind of work, but I decided to look it up and check myself. Good thing, too, because I was wrong. I graduated in 1977 and 'AITF' was still airing new episodes in 1979.

      That's surprising to me! I had no idea that I even COULD have worked on it. Dang, man, I'm freakin' OLD!

      Well, Sig, thanks for checking in here, Buddy! So far, this blog bit isn't generating the responses I expected, so I may be posting my own take on that scene sooner than I thought.

      ~ Stephen

  4. You're asking me to use my "thinkin" brain? That's dangerous stuff, McCarthy. Here goes, I'm no expert on the subject but I'm gonna take a stab at it anyway...

    I think it's a satirical jab at two extreme sides of the argument. On one side you have people saying "No guns for anyone," and then on the other side you've got dear Archie Bunker who says "guns for everybody." His answers sound ridiculous - if you want planes to not be jacked, let everybody on the plane have a gun. But is this really any more ridiculous than the notion that we should just take away all of our guns entirely? Do we think that by doing this, the bad guys will just never be able to get guns and we'll never have violence again? In a way, by him saying "we need guns for everybody" it seems like he's poking fun at the far opposite extreme and just showing how ridiculous EVERYONE sounds.

    And I think it's a fair argument. We're not going to be any safer by taking away all guns and assuming the "bad guys" just won't ever have access to them again (that's wrong, the "bad guys" will always get guns), just like we're not going to be any safer if we give every person with a warm body and a heartbeat a gun. We need to find some reasonable common ground.

    So, how'd I do? Keep in mind I've never owned a gun, never fired or held one, have no interest in ever owning one, but I'm not anti-gun. I just wouldn't call myself an expert on guns by any stretch of the imagination, so if I'm off base with what I said... well, I wouldn't be too surprised.

    Also, I never really watched AITF (my parents didn't let me see it when I was younger - didn't want it to be a bad influence on me). But it's funny to me how timely this bit still is. 40 years later and it still sounds like something we'd be squawking about on TV. Well, actually it IS something we're still squawking about on TV, and the Internet, and in newspapers, etc...

      Thanks for checking in here with your input, my friend!

      There really isn't any certified Right or Wrong answers to the questions. Nor does one need to know much about guns or need to have ever fired one in order to have an opinion and respond to my questions.

      What I'm really after is just everyone's "immediate impression" of the scene; what it seemed to be saying or doing for them, and what they took away from it. So, your answers were just right.

      Nothing about the scene really surprised me, but I was immediately struck by a couple of very obvious things that the writer/producer was attempting to do. I was just curious to find out if the same thing(s) jumped out at others also.

      Another day or two and then I'll yak here about the things I have in mind.

      Thanks again, 4-B.

      ~ D-FensDogg
      'Loyal American Underground'

  5. Heyo, Brother Stephen -

    Sorry, again, for being so unavailable of late. Just returned from a long trip featuring no free time, just in time to attend board meetings, publish a newsletter, etc. etc. And I owe you the Mother Of All Emails.

    However, this is a fun little assignment. Even though it is 1:15 and I get up in a few hours, I want to get a comment in before you do.

    I loved All In The Family. I watched in every week, though at this point I don't remember many specific scenes (other than the same "points" that Sig remembers). I was usually frustrated with the way they wrote Archie because I agreed with much of this stance on things, but watched the writers make him into a jackass every week. Their point was (sure, to make money - but beyond that...) to move everyone "left". It was the Hegelian Dialectic, practiced.

    A well-known, common opinion of the right is expressed by Archie. "Meathead" argues against the point from the left. Archie gets mad and says something racist or clearly over the top. Laugh track plays. Right is wrong, and left is right. Ha Ha.

    In your clip, Archie says something that is FACT: The commies took all the guns. Later he says something that most people would find ridiculous (more on that in a moment): passing out guns to passengers on airplanes. Everyone laughs, and the original FACT that the communists took the people's ability to fight from them is tied to the humor.

    Now here is the "funniest" part: people packing heat on airplanes is a huge reason we've had no more trouble with terrorists on planes lately. Not everyone on a plane has to carry a gun, but if terrorists know SOMEONE very well might have one, they seek other methods. Sky Marshalls travel on many flights these days and you never know which one. It is a dramatic deterrent. The same would be the case with schools, even though the NRA was mocked for floating the idea. Schools in Israel have some people with concealed weapons, and schools are no longer targeted in that way. 6600 rocket strikes per year... yes. But not people raiding schools.

    I honestly believe we would all be safer if EVERYONE owned a gun. No, I am not kidding, lefties.

    My right to own a gun is not determined by the government in ANY way. And frankly, whatever the Constitution says about it (though supportive of the pre-existing fact) is not pertinent, either. The government and how it interprets the Constitution can force me to do what it wants, but my rights are NATURAL RIGHTS, given by GOD. The government can - at the point of its OWN gun - keep me from exercising my rights, but they do NOT determine them. "I am not a number. I am a FREE MAN!"

    Like Archie.

    1. >>... "I am not a number. I am a FREE MAN!"

      But... but... I thought you were Number Six from Sheboygan.

      Well said, and great to hear from you too, 6. The 'Ferret-Faced Fascist Friends' territory has missed ya lately, Bro.

      I'll be back...

      ~ D-FensDogg
      'Loyal American Underground'

  6. Listened to the video a couple of times and each time I was reminded more and more of my father. Daddy and Archie could have been twin brothers of different mothers. Daddy was more articulate, most likely due to a tad bit more education, but he did proclaim the same blue collar, middle class attitudes towards just about anything different from himself. As you know he was a big city cop, so he had very definite ideas about gun control – never an NRA member, but you would quite literally have to pry his weapons from his cold dead hands.

    While growing up, I felt my father, like Archie was a closed minded bigot who was more afraid of the changing world around him, than really in touch with what was going on in the world. Like most adolescents, who are sure they know everything and their parents are trapped in a generation time warp, I felt that Daddy didn’t give the rest of the world much of a chance and was probably the most un-teachable ‘real’ person that I knew. Slowly, I started to realize that Daddy character was personified in Archie Bunker when some of the nuances of his understanding became apparent.

    Sorry, I’m reminiscing and rambling there. The first part of the ‘editorial’ where Archie compares the ideas of gun control in the US to the onset of Communism in Russia, particularly when he states that it is the International Bankers, backing the idea of gun control so that Communism can slip in the back door,
    is almost word for word the same things that my father would say. Of course, just like ‘the meathead’ I paid him no mind at the time and actually thought ‘here we go again, with another of his insanely WASP rants’. It wasn’t until much later in my life that I came to realize that Daddy had a whole lot more information at hand, he just wasn’t very good at, or a very good advocate for disseminating that information.

    All that said could it be that the writers of AITF were actually trying to send a message to the American people. If so, it’s unfortunate that, perhaps like me and my adolescent mind, brainwashed to actually believe there was a ‘generation gap’, the TV viewers failed to hear truth when spoken plainly. The laugh track seemed to immediately put the audience on the side of ‘Meathead’, in his astonishment of Archie’s assessment of the situation. As usually was the case with both Archie and Daddy, the very next comment (the one pertaining to arming all airline passengers) came across as so ridiculous/incredible that any truth/warning was washed right over by the incredulousness of his next proposal.

    Is it possible that AITF was so far ahead of it’s time that the writers/producers actually hoped and believed they could reach the American people with a sly message, aimed at government interference and control?

    Two finals things. First, it seems to me that the absolutely ridiculous proposal of Archie that we stop skyjacking by arming all the passengers was actually proposed in a similar fashion after the Newtown Elementary School shooting, as in arming all teachers and other personnel at public school facilities. Second, I’m grateful that both Daddy and I lived long enough for me to see that he DID have a much greater grasp on the reality of the world around us, he simply didn’t know what he could do to change it. Like Archie my father fought in the ‘great war’ and believed at that time the USA to be honest and true to everything the founding fathers stood for, as he began to see this was not true, the sadness and disillusionment that crept into his life was difficult to watch.

    Perhaps Archie was meant to be that person, those members of the ‘greatest generation’ who became a product of their environment, unable to process what the world around them was becoming, seeing through the shadows and not wanting to face the reality

    OK, that got way deeper than I intended.


      You are no longer allowed to refer to yourself on this blog as a "dumb blonde" (or "blond", as you usually spell it). I realize you were never serious when you'd use the expression, but it will no longer be tolerated on F-FFF, whether you're kidding or not.

      Any comment with the "dumb blonde" buried in it or attached to it will forthwith be summarily deleted (which is why your second short remark has not been posted in this comment section).

      Well, most of the gang's here. We're still missing Br'er Marc - but he's pretty buried in life these days. And DiscConnected hasn't made an appearance, but he doesn't come around as often as he used to, so...

      I'll wait another day, or two, and then put in my .02 cents.

      My thanks to EVERYONE for your feedback!

      ~ D-FensDogg
      'Loyal American Underground'

  7. Stephen-

    Sorry I am late to the party-been laid up with a summer cold and have not been online in a few days.

    You and I have talked about this issue in great length, so my response should not be a surprise.

    While I have stated in the past I support a local government's right to restrict the ability to bear arms, you've responded that it has been statistics show that states with relaxed carry laws are safer.

    The Commies were not the only ones who disarmed their people-German did so in the 30's and look how well that turned out.

    So I agree with a modified Archie opinion-guns for everyone who wants them, which is what our founding fathers wanted.

    We may want to hold off on the distributing guns to airline about we settle for evicting the TSA from the airports?


    1. >>... how about we settle for evicting the TSA from the airports?

      That's a petition I would sign early and often!

      ~ D-FensDogg
      'Loyal American Underground'

      POSTSCRIPT: Something you posted on my 'Shitty City, Airheadzona' blog bit got me wondering... You mentioned your favorite watering hole. Were you referring to Santisi Bros.? Or are you now a regular somewhere else? Also, you still a fan of Fireball? I tried it chilled and straight recently (rather than mixed) and I thought it was almost TOO good!

    2. Not fond of TSA, then you boys will love this. We all expect once we've gone through security and dealt with TSA once, we are free to board our planes without harassment. If you have to make a connecting flight, and you stay inside the gates area and don't leave the security perimeter, you should be OK, right? NOT SO, at least not in Miami where they randomly set up again at various gates to check you again. SHESH! No walking through the metal detectors, but they do physically go through your stuff with a fine tooth comb and provide extended 'pat downs'. I may never fly again.

    3. And I'm SURE I will never fly again.

      So glad I went to visit The Senator's final resting place in Appleton in 2010. That "still, small Voice" told me to go when I did. Had I not listened, I never would have made that pilgrimage, because by the following year the Tyrannical Sexual Abusers were abusing all American citizens in the airports... and I was done flyin' at that point.

      ~ D-FensDogg
      'Loyal American Underground'

  8. One other comment. I did not mention this last time because, frankly, I was not sure what to make of it. However, you wanted all our thoughts.

    I was fascinated that the writers had Archie mention "international bankers" who want "emasticate" the people." I was not even aware of the international banker conspiracy as a theory at the time this aired. It would have blown right over my head, and I am sure it blew over the heads of almost everyone else watching this at the time (I was a very well-informed politically-minded teenager.) I am sure almost everyone just ticked the box: "Yep, Archie sure is a nutjob!"

    I don't know why the writers wrote this about the bankers. Is it because they REALLY thought it was a wacko theory and would show Archie as an idiot? It is because someone ranked above them suggested it? Is it because the writers themselves actually knew it was real/probable/possible and wanted to denigrate the idea?

    Figuring out who actually knows this fact is the most difficult aspect of the question for me, whenever it comes up. I am convinced that most people who help sell us down the river don't even know they are doing it, but are simply duped into thinking that they should support "gun control" or work against "climate change" or lobby for "gender equality." They don't have a clue that the march towards socialist/communism is being directed. The loss of freedom is so slow (well, to THEM, anyway... morons!) that they don't notice it.

    So, hell. I don't know the truth about this scene. But I was FASCINATED by it, and look forward to your comments!

      You're hot on the trail of something. FarAwayEyes stole a little of my (coming) thunder by being the first to focus on what I consider the most intriguing aspect of that scene. (Her comment in general, and her zeroing in on that specific aspect resulted in me banning her use of the expression "dumb blonde" ever again on this blog.)

      You have further put a spotlight on it in this, your second comment.

      Probably tomorrow after work, I will post my own comment(s) and expand on it some. I'm glad you've found this little assignment to be fun. I wondered: How would the discussion go if I wasn't the first to offer an opinion for a change?

      It was time "for something completely different".

      ~ D-FensDogg
      'Loyal American Underground'

  9. I was a huge fan of "All in the Family". I swear, Archie Bunker WAS my father. Blue collar, uneducated, bigoted, big mouthed... but with teensy flecks of gold in his heart. Not knowing what he was talking about never stopped him from expressing an opinion.

    But as popular as AITF was, I still think it was sold short. Yes, it was funny and innovative. Yes, it was ground-breaking and dared to talk about subjects previously off-limits. But it was so much more. It was thought-provoking, and intelligent. Archie may not have expressed himself very well, but his ideas weren't always as half-baked and without substance as meathead made them out to be. By presenting extreme stances on various subjects, the show enabled an intelligent audience to THINK about those topics, and to possibly appreciate the value of a more sensible middle ground.

    As to the clip specifically, Archie made some valid points. Stripping guns from citizens rarely results in a rosy outcome. When all the guns are in the hands of the government... or the military... citizens go from being the governed to being the oppressed. And while I've had a concealed weapon permit for many years, I'm not in favor of every airline passenger carrying a gun onboard... although having an armed marshall onboard seems to have already proven to be a detriment.

    1. SUSAN ~
      I'm wondering if maybe you and FarAwayEyes are actually sisters, separated at birth.

      I'm not ordinarily much for "middle ground". Being a defender of the Constitution's original intent, as conceived by our Founding Fathers, it seems that today's American government would label me an extremist and a radical.

      On May 5, 1995, Bill Clinton said, "You cannot be a patriot and despise your government." So, according to his definition, our Founders were not patriots. And things have only gotten worse since the Bill Clinton era.

      Yes, a good deal of what Archie Bunker said was valid. And that's why it had to be rubbed out with ridicule. Which leads to my take on that Gun Control scene.

      Not sure if I'll get to it tonight... but soon, anyway.

      ~ D-FensDogg
      'Loyal American Underground'

  10. I still love Fireball, but lately I've been going to a place at 59th and Greenway (my buddy Mike hangs there).

    I read a letter in this weeks' New American that makes me want to retract what I said tabout supporting the state's rights to restrict arms.

    The letter pointed out that the first amendement is all about the Federal government and says "Congress shall pass no law," implying that the states could (Utah, go ahead and make Mormon your state religion).

    If the founding fathers wanted Tombstone, AZ to be able to say you can't carry a gun in town, they probably would have used similar language.

    That's what this letter writer posed, and it seems like sound logic to me.


    (and can we legalize marijuana, for Pete's sake?)


  11. Did I forget to mention Fireball? I still love it but have had to scale back-I was simply drinking too darn much of it. Drop a shot in a glass of Diet Coke, and the next thing I knew I'd had five or six shots (at $4.50 each).

    1. 59th And Greenway? Tony's Cocktail Lounge? I couldn't picture the area, so I Googled the cross streets and Tony's came up. I've never been there.

      A few states DID already have official state religions (or Christian denominations) at the time the Bill Of Rights became law, so, yes, obviously the First Amendment did not in any way impact the states regarding officially sanctioned religion.

      I've read scholarly arguments pro and con about what the states could or could not do regarding gun rights, and so far I have not been absolutely persuaded by anything I've encountered.

      However, the last Amendment in the Bill Of Rights (#10) is clearly intended as a restriction on the federal (more often called "national" in our Founders' day) government.

      So with the First and Last Amendments in the Bill Of Rights clearly addressing the federal government, I have to wonder about all of those between them.

      As I said, I've read some good arguments on both sides. But I believe that most of our Founders considered "competition between states" (i.e., vying for newcomers) to be the principal factor that would keep the states largely on the straight and narrow, on the up and up - conscientious about securing the rights of the people from independent state skullduggery.

      Also, it was probably utterly incomprehensible to any of our Founding Fathers that ANY state would ever propose disarming the people.

      I had 'Fireball' once, some time back, but I mixed it with 7-Up like I would normally do with bourbon. I thought it was OK. However, recently someone suggested I just sip it straight but ice cold.

      Oh, man! One sip and I knew that stuffs could get me in trouble if I wasn't careful. It tasted WAY TOO DAMN GOOD! Thankfully it's not as strong as most bourbons are: 66 proof vs. 80 proof.

      Next time, maybe try it straight but very chilled. You'll probably drink less because you're more conscious of drinking straight shots. But the flavor, when it's not being diluted with other flavors is really something. It's not really "hot", but it's cold AND warm because of that heavy cinnamon. Outstanding! (I'm only sorry that Canada gets credit for it.)

      ~ D-FensDogg
      'Loyal American Underground'

  12. Fireball was so good it made me consider becoming Canadian....but after Obama we're so far along that path I figured why bother packing all my junk up and moving it?

    Kimmyz is the bar at 59th and Greenway...north west corner. They can't decide whether they want to be a biker bar or sports bar, but there's usually a live band on Fri and Sat (although they all seem to use the same classic rock set list).

    1. Yeah, why move to Canada when Canada is moving to us?

      I don't recall seeing Kimmyz. Maybe one o' these years I'll check it out.

      ~ D-FensDogg
      'Loyal American Underground'

  13. Part 1:

    Here I am very late to my own party! Standard Operating Procedure, Situation Normal.

    First, I want to thank EVERYONE who submitted a comment here. I enjoyed reading your thoughts, and I found it interesting how everyone came at the topic from a slightly different but intelligent angle. For me, this was a fun little experiment, letting y’all “go first” for a change.

    A couple of you mentioned the laugh track in the scene. This really isn’t important, but just for the record, according to ‘ALL IN THE FAMILY’ producer Norman Lear, they did not use a laugh track; the show was filmed before a live studio audience and so supposedly (if we can believe a dyed-in-the-wool socialist) all the laughter was genuine and spontaneous.

    In 2010, I participated in a ‘TEN FAVORITE TV SHOWS’ blogfest. My entry can be found HERE. You’ll see that I put ‘ALL IN THE FAMILY’ at #3 on my list. I own Seasons 1-8 and I still think the show is great... great, but FRUSTRATING. It indeed covered subjects that no sitcom previously had (e.g., menopause, sexual assault, infidelity, etc.) while at the same time being extremely entertaining and downright funny. In my opinion, Archie Bunker, played by Carroll O’Connor - in real life a loony Leftist - is television’s all-time greatest character (Barney Fife is a fairly distant second).

    The show’s producer, Norman Lear, is no garden variety Liberal – he is in fact a socialist through and through, and a highly influential social engineer. As entertaining as it was, ‘All In The Family’ was actually a tool that was being used to condition Americans to move from ‘Right’ to ‘Left’; away from Constitutional conservatism and toward Big Government Socialism. (It was effective; look at us today!)

    Here are a few examples illustrating how important Norman Lear has been in conditioning America to accept un-American principles:

    The “Progressive Champion”
    ...Despite her pro-communist record, Lee was honored as a “progressive champion” at the June 2 “awards gala” sponsored by the Campaign for America’s Future, perhaps the largest “progressive” group in the U.S. The gala, held in conjunction with a conference, is being chaired by the AFL-CIO, whose president, John Sweeney, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, is also being honored; the Service Employees International Union; the National Education Association; and Hollywood producer Norman Lear, among others.

    Fenton Communications, the public relations firm which represented George Soros during his attempt to buy the White House in 2004, is one of several groups and individuals on the Gala Awards host committee.

    by Larry Elder
    ...Given the left's dominance in the major media, academia and Hollywood, it is beyond insulting to hear influential Hollywood lefties like Mr. Lear whine about the supposed power of the right. Makes them sound like a, well, "Meathead."

    Continued Below...

    1. Part 2:

      is a modern liberal progressive advocacy group in the United States. Under U.S. tax code, People For the American Way is organized as a tax-exempt 501(c) non-profit organization. ... founded by television producer Norman Lear (All in the Family, Maude, The Jeffersons, etc.) in 1981. ... Located in Washington, D.C., People For the American Way monitors what it characterizes as "right-wing" activities, conducting rapid response, political lobbying, and volunteer mobilization. In addition, the organization's affiliated foundation (People For the American Way Foundation) runs programs designed for voter education and politically progressive infrastructure building.

      In her excellent book ‘SLANDER’, Ann Coulter notes: So powerful is the left’s imaginary enemy, that Norman Lear, a multimillionaire TV producer, was said to have “walked away from his prime-time kingdom” to found ‘People For The American Way’ for the sole purpose of “combat[ing] the political influence of the religious right.”

      In his book ‘TALES FROM THE LEFT COAST’, James Hirsen refers to Norman Lear as the “founder of what ought to be called ‘PEOPLE FOR THE SOVIET WAY’.”

      Let there be no mistake, ‘ALL IN THE FAMILY’ (‘AITF’) was NOT primarily concerned with entertaining Americans. The show, from the start, was meant to condition the thinking of Americans, to move the consensus Leftward.

      You, my friends, are smarter’n the average bear, so I’m not going to waste time explaining the difference between misinformation and disinformation – I’m certain you all know what disinformation is and how it differs.

      One of the most effective disinformation tactics is to mix some truth with utterly outrageous falsehood, thereby smearing and seemingly discrediting the truth by association with the falsehood. The best lies are those that contain an element of truth, as Alfred Lord Tennyson wrote:

      A lie which is half a truth is ever the blackest of lies,
      For a lie that’s all a lie can be met with and fought outright,
      But a lie that is half a truth is a harder matter to fight.

      Continued Below...

    2. Part 3:

      In general, there wasn’t anything surprising about this ‘ALL IN THE FAMILY’ scene; it was typical of the usual approach: Archie Bunker takes a traditional view on some matter and his son-in-law, Michael (“Meathead”), opposes the traditional view, pointing out the seemingly logical and more fair Liberal perspective. As always, Archie bungles, mangles and mutilates the English language, highlighting his out-of-touch, old-fashioned views. The “conservative” opinion is discredited because it is so poorly articulated, and gets devoured by the college-educated mouth of “Meathead”. Archie’s opinions are pronounced guilty by association with bad grammar, poor vocabulary, and Archie’s ever-present racist, sexist ideas.

      What makes the show somewhat frustrating to intelligent conservatives or traditionalists is the fact that it is so entertaining, so funny, and O’Connor’s acting is simply the best – the BEST! - in television sitcom history. Although Archie’s views nearly always lose in the debate against “Meathead”, intelligent viewers realized that despite the awful presentation of those views, Archie was frequently, fundamentally correct. But the truth got smeared by a combination of Archie’s semi-literate arguments and “Meathead’s” articulate, collegiate “wisdom”.

      The one specific thing about this otherwise typical scene from ‘AITF’ that really jumped out at me was, as FarAwayEyes and Sheboyganboy Six mentioned, the reference to a “conspiracy” of “big International Bankers” who “want to - whaddaya call - masticate the people of this here nation like puppets on the wing”.

      Ordinarily, when Archie would do a ‘George W. Bush number’ on the English language, you could at least figure out what word he MEANT to say. In this case, “masticate”? Damn! I don’t even know what legitimate word got substituted there by “masticate”. Too funny!

      But here’s the thing: Throughout ‘AITF’, Archie was always a politically mainstream Republican who supported any idea or candidate associated with the GOP; he was pro-Nixon, pro-Ford, etc. Meathead, on the other hand, was a mainstream Liberal who supported every Leftist candidate and every Socialistic idea and program. Therefore, it was entirely out of character for Archie Bunker to have ANY information about the very real International Banker conspiracy. To my knowledge, never before or after this episode - ‘Archie And The Editorial’ - did Archie ever mention an International Banker conspiracy (also known as the “New World Order”).

      Of course, the intent was to discredit the idea of a Banker Conspiracy while at the same time discrediting Archie’s pro-Second Amendment position by associating them with the obviously preposterous idea of an airline company handing out guns to passengers and collecting them again at the conclusion of their flight. Guilt by association; the TRUTH ridiculed by attaching it to nonsense and inducing the viewers to ‘LAUGH IT OFF’. Very effective!

      Continued Below...

    3. Part 4:

      My regular readers know that one of the principal topics of this blog has been the International Banker conspiracy known as the “New World Order” – a fact that I have studied extensively for nearly 20 years and proven here repeatedly.

      The really intriguing question to me was: Why did Norman Lear and/or anyone else associated with ‘AITF’ decide to introduce this conspiracy topic in this episode, despite the fact that it was information the Archie Bunker character was highly unlikely to be aware of?

      It was probably in 1990 that a friend of mine introduced me to the concept of a “New World Order” International Banker conspiracy to create a Global Government based on Socialism and to be controlled by the Bankers themselves. At first I was skeptical, but by early 1994, I was fully convinced of it, as I recounted HERE.

      Now, thanks chiefly to the World Wide Web, the expression “New World Order” has become fairly well known; I was surprised to find how many nurses knew about it at an Urgent Care facility I worked at 2 years ago. But in 1994, it was still pretty esoteric knowledge, and if you mentioned it, most people would think you were as screwy as... well... as screwy as Archie Bunker.

      The truth is though, the International Banker “New World Order” conspiracy was alluded to, mentioned, or examined in books going way back. Some of the more notable titles are:

      ‘FOUNDATIONS: Their Power And Influence’ (1958) by Rene Wormser.

      ‘THE BLUE BOOK’ Of The John Birch Society (1959) by Robert Welch [The John Birch Society was formed to combat the spread of Communism, which was actually born from, a tool of, and promoted by the International Banker conspiracy.]

      ‘NONE DARE CALL IT TREASON’ (1964) by John Stormer [Stormer’s 1998 updated version, ‘None Dare Call It Treason ...25 Years Later’ is one of the all-time most essential political books, and it should be read by every single American concerned about the USA.]

      ‘TRAGEDY AND HOPE: A History Of The World In Our Time’ (1966) by Carroll Quigley (Bill Clinton’s most important mentor).

      ‘THE NAKED CAPITALIST’ (1970) by W. Cleon Skousen [This is a book-length review and commentary on Carroll Quigley’s 1,311 page ‘Tragedy And Hope’.]

      Continued Below...

    4. Part 5:

      Theoretically, one could even go back as far as the books ‘PROOFS OF A CONSPIRACY’ (1798) by John Robison, and ‘PHILIP DRU: ADMINISTRATOR’ (1912) by Edward Mandell House.

      The ‘AITF’ episode ‘ARCHIE AND THE EDITORIAL’ aired on September 16, 1972. I figured that something unusual must have happened in 1972, something disturbing enough to ‘The Powers That Be’, “The Wizards Behind The Curtain”, that they would deliberately attempt to muddy, denigrate, and poke fun at the ‘New World Order’ International Banker conspiracy concept. Even if it meant giving Archie Bunker some highly unusual, out-of-character information - even if they had to put words in Archie’s mouth that he would NEVER have spoken due to his normal, mainstream, political ignorance - “someone” felt it necessary to make an effort to smear the Banker conspiracy idea in the minds of many television-viewing Americans. They used Archie to do that.

      They attached the “New World Order” conspiracy and pro-Second Amendment rights viewpoints to the ludicrous “hand out guns to airline passengers” idea. In the process, they got laughs and managed to smear the first two truths by association with the final nonsense. That’s good disinformation work there!

      But... 1972? Why did Norman Lear, or perhaps a ‘Council on Foreign Relations’ (CFR) member representing the TV network decide it was important to undermine the Banker conspiracy in 1972? It didn’t take me very long to figure it out...

      In February of 1972, a man named Gary Allen – playing on the title of John Stormer’s 1964 masterpiece ‘None Dare Call It Treason’ – published a small, 138-page booklet titled ‘NONE DARE CALL IT CONSPIRACY’. This little publication pulled together lots of information about the ‘New World Order’ International Banker conspiracy from various sources. Following are some of the chapter titles: ‘Don’t Confuse Me With The Facts’; ‘Socialism – Royal Road To Power For The Super-Rich’; ‘The Money Manipulators’; ‘Bankrolling The Bolshevik Revolution’; and ‘The Rockefellers And The Reds’.

      Gary Allen’s ‘NONE DARE CALL IT CONSPIRACY’ started to sell like hotcakes! 350,000 copies were printed in February, 1972. They sold so quickly that the following month, 1,250,000 more copies were printed. They continued to sell, so the very next month – March, 1972 – 4,000,000 more copies were printed. As it now states on the book’s cover: “Runaway Bestseller! Over 5 million in print”.

      Because my own research over the years has taken me far deeper into the conspiracy than is covered in Gary Allen’s ‘NONE DARE CALL IT CONSPIRACY’, I have rarely mentioned the book or quoted Gary Allen in my own writings. Occasionally, however, I have. For example, I did so in the second and third paragraphs of my 2004 study titled ‘SEE THE "NEW WORLD ORDER" IN BLACK AND WHITE’.

      [For the record, I think Allen’s ‘None Dare Call It Conspiracy’ would be a good starting point for anyone interested in learning about the “New World Order” one-world International Banker conspiracy.]

      Continued Below...

    5. Part 6:

      I could be mistaken, but I think the reason Norman Lear and/or someone associated with the CFR decided to smear the idea of an International Bankers’ conspiracy in September of 1972, is because by April of 1972, Gary Allen’s booklet ‘NONE DARE CALL IT CONSPIRACY’ was gaining traction, selling like crazy and 5 million copies were already in print. A significant number of the (dumb) masses was catching on, learning the truth about “The Wizards Behind The Curtain”, about the real rulers behind the scenes, and so that scene in ‘Archie And The Editorial’ was shown on millions of television screens throughout the U.S. An International Banker conspiracy? Pshaw! Anyone who would believe a silly notion like that probably also thinks that passing out guns to airline passengers is a good idea!

      And there you have MY impression of that scene. It was a classic case of “disinformation”, and as Archie Bunker would say: “Case closed!”

      Incidentally, no one ventured to guess how that ‘AITF’ episode ended. Well, I’ll tell ya...

      After his TV debut, Archie takes the family to Kelcy’s Bar to celebrate his fifteen minutes of fame, and what do you suppose happens? Archie, Edith, Meathead, Gloria and everyone else at Kelcy’s bar gets robbed by two men brandishing guns. Whoa! I get it now! Guns are BAD; Gun Control is GOOD!

      ‘ALL IN THE FAMILY’ – the most entertaining Socialist propaganda ever devised. Even I love it... and you already KNOW how much I HATE Communists, Socialists, and International Bankers!

      ~ D-FensDogg
      ‘Loyal American Underground’

  14. Great six-part comment / blog bit on a single sentence uttered by Archie Bunker. Sometimes I wonder how lonely it must be to be you. (There's a compliment in there somewhere.)

    Even if it is not correct, it's a well thought out, in-depth analysis, as usual. My head would pop off if I dug that deep, although I did have a recent conversation regarding the pros and cons of sending a female terminator back in time to assassinate John Conner.
    Then my head popped off.

    Still waiting for Norman Lear or George Bloom to respond in this comment section. Bloom lives in West Palm Beach and is still active as a writer. How would you think he would respond? Would he call it a conspiracy theory, conveniently not remember that episode, not remember the episode because his memory isn't what is used to be, plead the 5th, or call the NSA and report you as a stalker, or agree with everything you wrote?

    A full 25% of my reading over the last two years has been due to your posts on this blog. I keep track of those things. I think I'll add ‘None Dare Call It Conspiracy' to the list. I did read your Amazon review of the 25th anniversary edition. Looks like you generated some more income for Amazon with that one.

    Sitcom SigToo

      Real reply after work, my friend.

      ~ D-FensDogg
      'Loyal American Underground'

    2. SigToo ~

      >>... Sometimes I wonder how lonely it must be to be you. (There's a compliment in there somewhere.)

      Ha! I'll take your word for it and just say, "Thanks!", even though I'm not sure where the compliment is. (Because no one thinks as deeply about this shit as I do, so I'm in a lonely place???)

      >>... Still waiting for ... George Bloom to respond in this comment section.

      Prior to writing this blog bit, I actually did an "IMDB" search on the writer, George Bloom, to see if anything stood out. (He was a co-writer credited for this episode. I didn't do a search on the secondary writer.) His credits did not indicate a particularly Leftist mind-set (Socialist, Communist, Dumb-assedist). So I refrained from mentioning him at all, and guessed that the (bad) brains behind the scene belonged to either Lear or some CFR network "Wizard".

      >>... A full 25% of my reading over the last two years has been due to your posts on this blog.

      Sig, that's an extraordinary compliment. I THANK YOU!

      I've written this many times, but... my primary reason for reviewing / blogging is to get readers to investigate whether or not my political views are correct. I figure that when they discover my (supposedly insane) political views can be objectively verified by publicly available information, they will then take my spiritual views into serious consideration.

      My ENTIRE purpose for writing and posting on the Internet has ALWAYS - from the very beginning - been to point people to the existence of The God Of 'The Holy Bible'. (And THAT is the reason that every single review, blog bit, and comment I have ever posted on the Internet contains the word "God".)

      >>... I think I'll add ‘None Dare Call It Conspiracy' to the list. I did read your Amazon review of the 25th anniversary edition. Looks like you generated some more income for Amazon with that one.

      I assume you mean John Stormer's 'NONE DARE CALL IT TREASON ...25 YEARS LATER'. (Not to be confused with Gary Allen's 'None Dare Call It Conspiracy' - a title he obviously adapted from Stormer's earlier book.)

      It's been ages since I've looked at the results of my review for Stormer's book at "". If my review helped Amazon sell copies of it, that's a Win/Lose situation. "Win" because people are buying and reading one of the all-time greatest political books ever published; "Lose" because a Leftist company like is prospering as a result.

      Still, I'd rather people buy the book from Amazon and read it, than that they never buy it from anyone and never read it.

      The more people read 'NONE DARE CALL IT TREASON ...25 YEARS LATER', the better chance there is that will eventually go bankrupt.

      Thanks for the great comment, Sig!
      (Incidentally, Email owed and NOT forgotten. It's on my 'To Do Soon' list, Brother!)

      ~ D-FensDogg
      'Loyal American Underground'

    3. >(Because no one thinks as deeply about this shit as I do, so I'm in a lonely place???)

      Yes. I'm glad to hear that you're not.

      Be on the lookout for a package coming your way this month. Been meaning to send it but a recent comment of yours in this blog just reminded me.

      Sig@...which is Sig2 with CapsLock on

    4. Sig@ ~
      Hey, a package for me? Thanks, Brother. If it's something good, I'm not deserving, but I'll take it anyway. Uh... I'm not going to renew my P.O. Box, so I won't have that after June. Please send to my home address. (You have that, right? I can't remember if the Lizzie paper was sent to my house or my P.O.B.)

      ~ D-FensDogg
      'Loyal American Underground'

    5. I have your address safely tucked away along with your Christmas card in the pages of 'Blacklisted by History".

      BTW, the "lonely" comment was really referring to the effort you put into posts like this, and how few people, even if they read it, would understand and appreciate that effort.

      I did get my wires crossed on the two 'NONE DARE CALL IT...' books. TREASON it is; unless I wait for the '50 Years Later" edition.


    6. Thanks, SIG.

      There may not be a United States to publish the '50 Years Later' edition in. I suggest buying it while you can.

      ~ D-FensDogg
      'Loyal American Underground'

  15. Well, that was as deep as I was expecting. "Old Stephen is up to his usual standards of blogging." Could be a compliment... or not. In this case it IS since I was expecting a very deep analysis from you.

    I had not delved in thought enough to wonder why they put international banking conspiracy in the AITF episode at that time. I guess I just assumed that it was on their propaganda list and wanted to slip it in somewhere. Your idea about the timing makes sense.

    As for the "masticate" word Archie used, I heard it as "E-masticate" and figured he was mistaking it for emasculate.

    thanks again for the fun exercise.

    1. SBB-6 ~
      Thanks for reading and commenting, my friend. And for the compliment!

      Yeah, I wasn't sure if Archie was saying "masticate" or "emasculate". It might very well be, as you suggest, "e-masticate". With Archie, just about anything's possible.

      As I work my way through all these 'AITF' episodes, I'm pretty amazed by how "cleverly" Archie blows the English language all to hell. It's actually pretty imaginative and very funny.

      Yak Later, Brotherman...

      ~ D-FensDogg
      'Loyal American Underground'

  16. Just got your package today... and after a bit of a battle, posted on the caps blog. Thanks a lot!

      You're very welcome. I was glad to be able to do it.

      When I mailed it, I was told you'd probably have it (last) Thursday. Let's hear it for "snail mail". Sheesh!

      ~ D-FensDogg
      'Loyal American Underground'

  17. Interesting read, comments and all. Why the comment on the International Bankers in 1972? I recall that as the year Nixon abolished the gold standard. Reagan wanted it reinstated and an assassination attempt "changed" the deal. At least that's what I gather.

    I'm new to visiting your blog. Recently posted to a joke type post of 49 questions. Forgot to introduce myself then. Glad to know someone is serious about all the insanity of what I'm watching take place. I used to get laughed at and ridiculed for some of the same type thinking. I didn't let it deter me from researching. But how the heck to stop it all is beyond me. It's a God thing after all. I keep watching.
    Enjoyed the post and comments, as I said. Take care.


    1. Hi, DIXIE ~
      Yes, I published your prior comment and responded. Not sure how you discovered this blog (via Robin's blog?) but I'm pleased you like what you've seen so far.

      I haven't re-read this blog bit and the comments, so I'm not sure how much of the following I covered but, in brief, my theory for why "they" had Archie Bunker mention the International Banker conspiracy in 1972 is because it just so happens that in the same year, Gary Allen's 'NONE DARE CALL IT CONSPIRACY' - a small booklet loaded with truth - was making a bit of a splash. It sold an astounding number of copies for a small independently published political tract.

      Allen's booklet let the cat out of the bag about how our political system was really rigged and who was behind it. For a little book, it was pretty dangerous to The Wizards Behind The Curtain.

      Since Archie Bunker was "supposed" to be the biggest buffoon on TV, they figured that if they had him go on a rant about an International Banker conspiracy, it would taint the idea in the minds of people who would hear of it later and automatically associate it with "Bunker bullshit". In other words, I think the Wizards were a little frightened and concerned about how this little book of facts was catching on and spreading. So the Archie Bunker bit was an attempt to head it off at the pass, so to speak.

      I could be wrong, but that's my theory, and I can't think of a better one yet.

      As for the International Bankers, they've been conspiring against We The People since before 1913, but that's when they really gathered the bulk of their power with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act.

      I don't recall Reagan saying he wanted to return to the Gold Standard, but if he did, he was lying and just giving some of the people what they wanted to hear.

      And if "they" wanted Reagan offed, he'd have been offed. (As far as I know, the attempted assassination of Reagan was a legitimate insane act, but I'm always open to hearing other views with facts to back 'em.)

      In a blog bit posted here...

      ...I made it clear what I think of Ronald Reagan as a "conservative" president. Below is just an excerpt from it:

      The evidence against Reagan’s conservative bona fides would swallow this Blog Bit, but to put a nugget of it in brief: Despite cutting tax rates, Reagan also “chalked up more government debt than all the Presidents before him combined.” A reduction in taxes without a reduction in government spending only adds to the deficit, and adding to the deficit does not a conservative make! [See: ‘The Shadows Of Power: The Council On Foreign Relations And The American Decline’ by Perloff.]

      Ronald Reagan (along with George H. W. Bush) was a member of the World Federalist Association. “This group openly called for immediate world government.” It’s aim was to “create a world federal government with authority to enact, interpret and enforce world law adequate to maintain peace …. World law should be enforceable directly upon individuals.” Bye-bye Bill of Rights protection for American citizens!

      At a 1983 economic summit, Ronald Reagan said: “An integrated world economy needs a common monetary standard … But, no national currency will do – only a world currency will work.” [See: ‘Treason: The New World Order’ by Gurudas.]

      Dixie, thanks for stopping by and commenting! Always glad to hear from someone else who knows what's really going on.

      ~ D-FensDogg
      'Loyal American Underground'

      POSTSCRIPT: I saw that you are a big fan of The Carpenters. Political awareness and good taste in music to, eh?


All submitted comments that do not transgress "Ye Olde Comment Policy" will be posted and responded to as soon as possible. Thanks for taking the time to comment.