Tuesday, November 30, 2010


Once again, Senator Jay Rockefeller is keeping the world safe for Marxism and government control of the free market. Even though consumers seem to want them, a congressional committee led by Rockefeller is widening its investigation of "mini-med" health-insurance policies to encompass potentially hundreds of plans offered by low-wage employers.

What started as a probe into McDonald's Corp.'s insurance plan for store workers is expanding into broad scrutiny of policies that could ensnare large mini-med carriers including Aetna and CIGNA.

Congressional investigators are taking a close look at the two carriers and culling insurance policy data on a range of large and small employers, a Senate aide said.

In a hearing scheduled for Wednesday, Senate Democrats plan to detail how restaurants, pet-store outlets and hair salons are offering workers health-insurance policies with low caps on annual benefit payouts that leave workers footing the bill for care, according to the Senate aide. Lawmakers also plan to press McDonald's top human-resources executive on the chain's mini-med plan that covers nearly 30,000 restaurant workers.

An estimated 1.4 million Americans are covered by mini-med plans.

New restrictions in the Marxist health overhaul passed in March are expected to effectively eliminate mini-med plans as of 2014, when low-wage workers will qualify for tax credits to help them buy insurance. But whether to really intrude into another area of the private sector and impose tougher regulations on such plans to raise annual benefit payouts, or force them to spend more money on medical care in the meantime, has become a thorny issue for the Socialist-leaning Obama administration.

In recent weeks, federal regulators have granted dozens of waivers to mini-med providers so they can keep the caps on annual payouts.

Also, the Obama administration said last week that mini-med plans could spend half as much as traditional carriers on medical care under health-law rules that take effect next year.

Democrats on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation are looking at whether mini-med plans should face tougher regulations.

Committee investigators are building a case that such coverage misleads consumers into thinking they have health insurance when such policies pay out as little as $1,000 a year for hospital visits and contain loopholes.

The insurance industry argues that tighter restrictions on such plans, such as raising the limit on annual benefit payouts, could force employers to drop them altogether.

"For many part-time, seasonal and temporary workers, these types of plans are their only source of affordable health-care coverage," said Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry's trade group.

The insurance industry does not hide the benefit limits on these plans, and has agreed to provide more information on the plan limits. Why then is Rockefeller so intent on his agenda?

Considering that most intelligent people perceive the real agenda behind health care "reform" to be the government takeover of the system in a bipartisan power grab, it makes sense that the administration would make moves to place more employees on the uninsured rolls, which would lead to more enrollees in the government plan.

And considering the number of Jay's relatives that infest the Council On Foreign Relations (see my post from last week), it is hard to belive that there is no ulterior motive with Rockefeller's agenda.

For the record, I work in the insurance industry and agree with some tweaks to the current process. One big one, coverage of preexisting conditions, should have been a done deal with the Clintons-not sure how that slipped through. Maybe Billy used that bill to clean himself off...oh never mind.

Thursday, November 25, 2010


Today, everyone in the United States will sit down to a large meal, probably centered around a turkey, and stuff their faces until they have to loosen the button on their jeans or until their elastic waists are at maximum stretch. And we will all probably forget how lucky we are to live in a country where we’ve got a lot of personal freedom.

And that is after a half century of those freedoms slowly being whittled away. Sadly, most Americans are too blind to see it happening and too afraid to want to know the truth.

So we’ll watch football, and cheer every time the camera shows a person in uniform, and pretend that we’re patriotic and that America is number one. From Veteran’s Day through New Year’s Day, the amount of exploitation of our men and women in uniform to brainwash the rest of the not-so-swift populace is amazing.

I’d like to take some blog time to introduce readers to the power behind the throne of America, or the men behind the curtain. In other words, the organization that has been shaping America for the last century.

The Council on Foreign Relations

What is the Council on Foreign Relations? It began in 1921 as a front organization for J.P. Morgan and Company. By World War II it had acquired unrivaled influence on American foreign policy. Hundreds of U.S. government administrators and diplomats have been drawn from its ranks - regardless of which party has occupied the White House.

But what does the Council on Foreign Relations stand for?

In Their Own Words...

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher dedicated to being a resource for its members, government officials, business executives, journalists, educators and students, civic and religious leaders, and other interested citizens in order to help them better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing the United States and other countries.

Founded in 1921, the Council takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. The Council carries out its mission by:

o Maintaining a diverse membership, including special programs to promote interest and develop expertise in the next generation of foreign policy leaders;

o Convening meetings at its headquarters in New York and in Washington, DC, and other cities where senior government officials, members of Congress, global leaders, and prominent thinkers come together with Council members to discuss and debate major international issues;

o Supporting a Studies Program that fosters independent research, enabling Council scholars to produce articles, reports, and books and hold roundtables that analyze foreign policy issues and make concrete policy recommendations;

o Publishing Foreign Affairs, the preeminent journal of international affairs and U.S. foreign policy;

o Sponsoring Independent Task Forces that produce reports with both findings and policy prescriptions on the most important foreign policy topics; and

o Providing up-to-date information and analysis about world events and American foreign policy on its website, CFR.org.

Seems benign, right? You would not expect their site to say they're bent on world domination, though, would you?

The Real Story...

Why do the major media avoid discussing the CFR?

The real truth, as detailed in books like The Shadows Of Power by James Perloff , is that the CFR has a goal of “submergence of U.S. sovereignty and national independence into an all-powerful one-world government.”

To accomplish its goal, the CFR has infiltrated all levels of government with people who support its goals. Listen to their words.

President George H.W. Bush used to speak of a “New World Order.”

President Obama says,” We have to shape an international order that can meet the challenges of our generation,”

Once you start to read about this topic, it becomes clear that we are being led down a primrose path by a group of insiders connected to the international banking community and very high level power brokers who keep a low profile (operating out of the shadows, as it were).

Need more convincing-here are some of the current CFR members:

• Michael R. Bloomberg (Current Mayor of New York City)
• George H.W. Bush, 41st President of the United States
• Jimmy Carter, 39th President of the United States
• Dick Cheney, 46th Vice President of the United States
• Bill Clinton, 42nd President of the United States
• Hillary Rodham Clinton, 67th United States Secretary of State
• Alan Greenspan (former Chairman of the Federal Reserve)
• Henry Kissinger, 56th United States Secretary of State
• John McCain, United States Senator from Arizona
• Colin Powell, 65th United States Secretary of State
• Condoleezza Rice, 66th United States Secretary of State
• George Shultz, 60th United States Secretary of State
• Walter B. Slocombe (former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy)
• Paul Volcker (former Chairman of the Federal Reserve)
• James D. Wolfensohn (former president of the World Bank)
• Paul Wolfowitz (former president of the World Bank, former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense)
• James Woolsey (former Director of Central Intelligence and former head of the Central Intelligence Agency)
• Robert Zoellick (President of the World Bank)

Doesn't it seem odd that so many leaders of both parties are in the CFR ranks? Is it a coincidence that Federal Reserve and World Bank executives walk the CFR halls?
Here are some of the corporations that support the CFR’s goals (a more complete list is shown on the CFR’s site):

• Alcoa, Inc.
• American Express Company
• Bank of America / Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.
• Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, The
• Barclays Capital
• Boeing Company, The
• Chevron Corporation
• Chrysler LLC
• Citi
• Coca-Cola Company, The
• Estee Lauder Companies Inc.
• Exxon Mobil Corporation
• Federal Express Corporation
• Ford Motor Company
• General Electric Company
• GlaxoSmithKline
• Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
• Google, Inc.
• IBM Corporation
• JPMorgan Chase & Co
• McGraw-Hill Companies, The
• Merck & Co., Inc.
• Mitsubishi International Corporation
• New York Life International, Inc.
• Nike, Inc.
• PepsiCo, Inc.
• PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
• Prudential Life Insurance Co.
• Shell Oil Company
• Sony Corporation of America
• Time Warner Inc.
• Toyota Motor North America, Inc.
• United Technologies Corporation
• Verizon Communications Inc.
• Visa Inc.
• Volkswagen of America, Inc.
• Xerox Corporation

If that is not enough to make you want to know more, consider this:

Heck, even the sexiest woman alive is a member!

Due to the number of high-ranking government officials, world business leaders and prominent media figures in its membership, it is easy to see how the CFR would have significant influence on US policy decisions. CFR members have been involved in many aspects of American foreign policy beginning with Wilson's Fourteen Points (in which he presented the idea of a worldwide security organization to prevent future world wars).

My friend Stephen T. McCarthy believes that the CFR is guilty of conspiring with others to build a one world government. If you frequent his blog, FERRET-FACED FASCIST FRIENDS, you will be familiar with the various materials he references to support his beliefs. I will not revisit his posts here-I would encourage you to read them for yourself.

Let me just say that there is a lot of compelling evidence that the CFR is in fact pulling the strings on our govermental puppets, and that the continued depletion of American wealth and the downsizing of the middle class is by design.

Go read the books.

Look at the actions of both parties.

Decide for yourself.

So why am I posting all of this today, on a day when we’re supposed to give thanks?

Many of us only have a vague notion of where the food that crams our grocery stores even comes from. Fewer still comprehend the reason for the abundance we now enjoy.

The source of our prosperity is our freedom. This liberty allows us to live lifestyles our grandparents could only dream of.

If more Americans do not wake up to the truth, these freedoms will become memories.

It may not be too many more Thanksgivings until all we have to share around that big table is the government cheese.

Saturday, November 13, 2010


Possibly the first story in the Arizona Republic that I approve of!

Arizona voters have approved Proposition 203, which legalizes marijuana for medicinal use.

The Secretary of State's unofficial results indicate that the "yes" vote on the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act has won by a narrow margin of 4,341 votes, or 50.13 percent of more than 1.67 million votes counted.

This after Maricopa County officials finished counting about 11,000 outstanding ballots Saturday.

The "yes" and "no" votes remained neck-and-neck for more than a week since Election Night, with the "yes" vote trailing behind by at least 3,000 each day. But the "yes" vote picked up traction after election officials started counting provisional ballots and by Friday, it was leading by 4,421 for the first time.

Arizona would be the 15th state to legalize medical marijuana.

The general-election canvass will be held Nov. 29. The Arizona Department of Health Services has 120 days from that day to finalize all rules for implementation. The department is expected to begin reviewing dispensary and patient applications by April 2011.

Andrew Myers, campaign manager for the pro-Prop. 203 Arizona Medical Marijuana Policy Project, said he believes there are more Arizonans who support medical marijuana than what the votes show. He said voter skepticism was rooted in concerns that Arizona's medical-marijuana program would be similar to ones in California and Colorado.

But Myers said Prop. 203 was written to create a strict and regulated medical-marijuana program.

Mellow out, dude! Maybe I really DO have glaucoma!

"It's up to us now to prove them wrong and assuage those concerns," Myers said.

The state health department and local planning and zoning officials have said they would implement as many rules as possible to ensure the program is tightly regulated, and for the benefit of patients with debilitating diseases.

But Carolyn Short, chairwoman of the anti-Prop. 203 campaign Keep AZ Drug Free, said Friday that voters will find they voted for a "concept," and anybody who wants marijuana will get it. Short said Saturday that she is disappointed to see Prop. 203 pass.

Chris Ross, administrator and owner of Arizona's Medical Marijuana Community, an online forum where users can share information on doctors, dispensaries and marijuana strains, said there still will be a stigma around patients using marijuana for awhile. He created the website so patients could discreetly access information and find which doctors are sympathetic to the use of marijuana as a medicine, he said.

Ross, whose sister has stage-four breast cancer, said he is "ecstatic" Prop. 203 pulled through.

"It was disappointing (at first), but when the tide turned on Friday, I was just in shock," Ross said. "The people who oppose it see the worst-case scenario, but I see the best-case scenario. People like my sister - they're going to get the help they need."

Supporters of the measure attribute the vote surge to provisional ballots, which voters cast when there is a question about the voter's eligibility. Provisional voters tend to be younger people whose addresses do not match the voter roll because they move around often, Myers said.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not approved smoking marijuana for medicinal use.

But these are the Feds, the same fascists who are suing Arizona over its immigration law. These people NEED to mellow out!

Licensed physicians could recommend medical marijuana to patients with debilitating medical conditions, including cancer, glaucoma, HIV/AIDS, hepatitis C and Alzheimer's disease. Patients would register for identification cards with the state health department. They could also receive up to 2 1/2 ounces of marijuana every two weeks from dispensaries or cultivate up to 12 plants if they live 25 miles or more from a dispensary.

The law allows for no more than 124 dispensaries operated by non-profits to start, proportionate to the number of pharmacies in the state.

Which brings us to an interesting dilemna. You see, that is not the only Arizona marijuana news this weekend.

Maricopa County Sheriff's deputies made a large marijuana bust north of Phoenix on Friday night. They seized 1,700 pounds of marijuana on Interstate 17.

It was found after deputies pulled over a limousine pulling a large trailer near Black Canyon City. They said the driver had been driving erratically.

Big surprise there.

But since this interesting turn of events with Prop 203, doesn't that make the guys in the limo a mobile pharmacy?

Saturday, November 6, 2010


Todd Rundgren once recorded a song entitled “Swing To The Right,” way back in the early eighties, and it was released on Utopia’s seventh album of the same title.

Swing to the right
Try to face the fact that I ain't that young no more
Hair's short again and a suit is in,
Better brush up on how to tie a Windsor knot
Swing to the right
Credit's hard to find and a dollar doesn't go so far
What's more important when the count comes in
A sell-out who's alive or a corpse that can't be bought?

As good friend Stephen T. McCarthy observed on his “Ferret-Faced Fascist Friends” blog, the pendulum has swung right once again.

Change we can believe in!

Or not.
According to the famed high-brow newspaper that is the Airheadzona Repugnant, many people are blaming Tea party-backed candidates for losing Senate seats held by Democrats that the GOP had big hopes of capturing.

The Republic describes GOP leaders “muttering that …tea party activists…hobbled the GOP's outside shot of running the Senate.

The same brilliant political minds state that Tea partiers largely spurned establishment candidates in the GOP primaries and helped nominate Christine O'Donnell in Delaware, Sharron Angle in Nevada and Ken Buck in Colorado.

The implication being that all three lost on Tuesday and it’s those darn Tea Partiers’ fault.

Now help me here. Explain it to me like I am a five year old.

Aren’t the Tea Partiers American people?

And isn’t the whole point of the election that the American people get to choose a candidate?

Explain to me, Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele, why the GOP did not embrace these candidates?

Why is it that party leadership is being critical of its party members rather than listening to the message they sent you?

The message is, if you did not get it, we’re tired of the same old song and dance!

The GOP was very clear that they would not support O’Donnell, so in my opinion, they alone are to blame for her loss.

And not only that, but they had a DUTY to represent the candidates chosen by their constituents, and they chose not to do their duty.

Instead, they try to force feed us RINO’s (Republicans-In-Name-Only) like Arizona’s John McCain, who tells you exactly what you want to hear to get a vote.

McCain ran for President saying he “knew how to get Bin Laden.”


If he knew, why wasn’t he going public with that intel for the previous seven years?

Didn't he have, I don't know, a DUTY TO HIS COUNTRY as a member of the Senate to track down this terrorist who led an unprovoked attack on our shores?

Sorry, but that statement either makes him, senile, a liar, or a traitor.

And now he ran for his Senate seat (even though all he had done for two terms was campaign for the Presidency) saying he would be “tough on immigration.”

Hmm…wasn’t this the same guy who has been on record as supporting amnesty for a couple of decades?

Explain to me how simply telling everyone who came here illegally that they are now legal is “tough?”

It seems to me, it encourages illegal border crossing if you know all you have to do is stay under the radar for a few years and you’ll get a free pass.

I won't even go into how McCain waffled on our policy on torture and voted for the bailouts that mortgaged your children's futures and send us careening inot Marxism at an unprecedented pace.

I’ve stayed registered Republican so I can vote in primaries, because they sometimes do have good candidates.

Those of you who are represented by Ron and Rand Paul, you are lucky.

If Arizona real estate was not in the toilet, I’d sell my house and move to Texas.

Sadly, most good candidates do not make it past the primary.

This time a few did.

And the GOP abandoned them.


Why would they do such a thing?

Stephen said it best on his blog-“ overall, it’s like deja-1994-vu all over again.” He even said it better when he says, ‘The Democrat and Republican party – one party pretending to be two in order to give you “a choice”.’

And the real power in the US is pulling both parties' strings.

Instead of ignoring the Tea Party candidates, the GOP was OBLIGATED to embrace them.

They did not.

Maybe they think this strategy will get people “back into the fold” for 2012.

They can write off my vote, unless they shock the hell out of me with a Ron Paul/Rand Paul ticket.

I hope that the Tea Partiers follow suit, and give serious consideration to Constitution and Libertarian party candidates.

Stop blindly voting the party line. Do that and they win.

Join me in being “Republican In Registration Only.”

And Arizona, please-can we vote out McCain next time?

Are you really going to let this lemon die in his seat?

Either a shot of McCain being tough on immigration
 or of him dying in his Senate seat...I am not sure which

Friday, November 5, 2010


Law Curbs McDonald's Happy Meal Toys

As the country continues to wage war against obesity, health advocates have set their aim on fast-food chains such as McDonald's in the way they market their kid's meal options.

A new San Francisco law looks to prohibit children's meals to be packaged with toys unless they have less than 600 calories in order to avoid children opting for unhealthy meals simply to earn a prize.

I've posted the article below in yellow text, with a link to the site is at the bottom of the post.

What's wrong with you California? First you cop out on legal weed, and now you want to keep kids and stoners from their free Transformer toys?

San Francisco has become the first major U.S. city to pass a law that cracks down on the popular practice of giving away free toys with unhealthy restaurant meals for children.

San Francisco's Board of Supervisors passed the law on Tuesday on a veto-proof 8-to-3 vote. It takes effect on December 1, 2011.

The law, like an ordinance passed earlier this year in nearby Santa Clara County, would require that restaurant kids' meals meet certain nutritional standards before they could be sold with toys.

Opponents of the law include the National Restaurant Association and McDonald's Corp, which used its now wildly popular Happy Meal to pioneer the use of free toys to market directly to children.

"We are extremely disappointed with today's decision. It's not what our customers want, nor is it something they asked for," McDonald's spokeswoman Danya Proud said in a statement.

"Getting a toy with a kid's meal is just one part of a fun, family experience at McDonald's," Proud said.

The San Francisco law would allow toys to be given away with kids' meals that have less than 600 calories, contain fruits and vegetables, and include beverages without excessive fat or sugar.

Backers of the ordinance say it aims to promote healthy eating habits while combating childhood obesity.

"Our children are sick. Rates of obesity in San Francisco are disturbingly high, especially among children of color," said San Francisco Supervisor Eric Mar, who sponsored the measure.

"This is a challenge to the restaurant industry to think about children's health first and join the wide range of local restaurants that have already made this commitment," Mar said.

Fifteen percent of American children are overweight or obese -- which puts them at risk of developing heart disease, diabetes and cancer, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In some states, the childhood obesity rate is over 30 percent.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest this summer threatened to sue McDonald's if it did not stop using Happy Meal toys to lure children into its restaurants. A lawyer for that group said it is on track to file the lawsuit in the next several weeks.

McDonald's debuted the Happy Meal in the United States in 1979 with toys like the "McDoodler" stencil and the "McWrist" wallet. Modern offerings have included themed items from popular films like "Shrek" or sought-after toys like Transformers, Legos or miniature Ty Beanie Babies.

In 2006, the latest year for which data is available, fast-food companies led by McDonald's spent more than $520 million on advertising and toys to promote meals for children, according to a U.S. Federal Trade Commission report.

When the efforts of other food and beverage companies were included, promotional spending aimed at children topped $1.6 billion.

Here are some of the comments from readers….notice a trend here?

A very sensible idea. Let’s hope it catches on and that it reduces the harm done to children’s health by eating unsuitable, highly-salted food.

A very sensible move. Let’s hope it results in less damage to children’s health from eating unsuitable, highly-salted foods

Good idea, but it needs to go farther. To grocery stores to stop them from selling life threatening things like red meat, white bread, candy, sodas, and limit them to selling on healthy nutritious whole foods that do not contribute to the overweight diets of americans.

Good start, but why wait a year? Isn’t 30 days enough?

How about stop salting French fries? They douse them with salt and it’s gross. I’ll salt my own food if I want. They used that tactic to sell drinks. At the very least, give people a choice.

Now if we can get food companies that make things like soup to stop claiming there are 2 servings in a can to mask how much salt and carbs are really in there.

“Healthy Choice” soup has over 1600 mg of sodium in one can. That is absurd. I can’t buy a healthy can of soup so I make my own. I’m a single guy and I don’t want to do that, but I have no choice. Even “low salt” foods have a ton of it.

Explain something to me.

Why is McDonald's the villain here?

What about the lazy-ass parents who go to McDonalds because they can't be bothered to learn how to cook?

Maybe if parents took some f*%#ing responsibility for the children that they chose to bring into the world, their children might be in better shape, as well as better educated, better behaved, more responsible, more morally centered…I could go on an on.

I get that obesity is a problem in American.

It's been a problem for me since the beginning of the Clinton administration, but I don't blame Bill Clinton's jogging to McDonalds example for my midsection.

And trust me, I'd like nothing more than to blame the Clintons, especially since no one seems to remember that they're to blame for NAFTA.

But the truth is, I could have actually stopped eating Philadelphia cheese steaks at any time.

No one puts a gun to a parent's head to choose McDonalds over a healthy home-cooked meal, either.

But to assume responsibility for one's own actions? That's not the American way.

We need someone to blame, someone to point a finger at.

Since we've beaten the tobacco industry to near-death and made smokers outcasts, let's move onto the fast food companies.

Instead of pointing the finger where it really needs to be pointed.

At our own fat asses!

See the full article, plus comments, at:

Wednesday, November 3, 2010


Prop 203 - Arizona Medical Marijuana Act

"NO" Votes-662,371 (50.26%)

"YES" Votes- 655,502 (49.74%)

Margin of defeat-6,869 (which is coincidentally the average attendance for the Arizona Cardinals since relocating to the state).

We were so close.

We were almost living the dream. Music would have sounded better. Food would have tasted better.

Maybe next time.

Sadly, alcohol causes far more social problems than marijuana.

Ever see two stoners get in a fight? yet how many bar fights are there every HOUR? Do you really think a stoned driver could be going fast enough to hurt anyone or anything?

Consider the financial windfall for a state when you go from paying to keep it criminalized (cost of arrests, trials, incarcerations) to a revenue stream from taxing it.

I am amazed that every state has not legalized marijuana.

Keep trying, seventies children!

Post-mortem. The decriminalization on marijuana lost in California by a landslide!

This was a shock to me.

So you can have a California marriage that isn't straight, but you better be straight while you're doing it!

Monday, November 1, 2010


Maricopa County drops election apparel ban

Crunched for time to enforce a federal judge's decision Monday on today's election, Maricopa County Recorder Helen Purcell said she is allowing voters to wear any apparel, including clothing that supports or opposes a candidate or proposition on the ballot, inside Maricopa County polls.

"We're doing the best we can . . . but I'm too short of time to try to get . . . to the poll workers at this late date," Purcell told The Arizona Republic late Monday.

Purcell said she did not think her decision would violate U.S. District Court Judge James Teilborg's ruling. However, that ruling set clear parameters for what apparel would be banned.

On Monday, Teilborg granted a temporary restraining order that allows people to wear a " 'tea party' T-shirt or any apparel that does not express support for or opposition to" a candidate, proposition or political party on the ballot.

Applying Teilborg's standard, apparel that promoted a labor union or the tea-party movement would be permissible, while a shirt supporting the Republican Party or Democratic gubernatorial candidate Terry Goddard would not.

Purcell said she posted the judge's ruling on the county recorder's website but added that she was forced to allow any apparel to be worn because she did not know how to retrain workers less than a day before the election.

"What about someone wearing something (that supports a candidate) running for some legislative district (the poll worker) is not familiar with? How can I say it's OK if they let that through but then not some other (more prominent) candidate? I can't discriminate. I have to allow it all. I don't know of any other fair way. I wish I did," Purcell said.

The judge's ruling and Purcell's decision affects the estimated 63 percent of Arizona voters who reside in Maricopa County.

The judge ordered the county to immediately distribute his ruling through the county recorder's website and phone calls to anyone working at polling sites.

The case came to the court last week when the Goldwater Institute, a Phoenix conservative think tank, discovered that Purcell determined that tea-party shirts were political advocacy and could not be worn within 75 feet of a polling place. The 75-foot zone is designated as a "campaign-free zone" to protect voters from being influenced or intimidated while casting ballots.

Clint Bolick, a Goldwater attorney, said he was "shocked" by Purcell's ban because a judge had ruled last month in favor of a Flagstaff woman who wanted to wear a tea-party T-shirt. But Purcell said that decision narrowly applied to Coconino County and only permitted the specific shirt representing the Flagstaff tea-party group.

Last week, Bolick filed for a temporary restraining order on behalf of Mark Reed, a Maricopa County voter who wanted to wear a tea-party T-shirt to the polls today. He asked the judge to allow the shirts on the basis that the apparel did not represent a registered political party, proposition or candidate on the ballot and as such did not violate electioneering laws.

Purcell said that officials were not singling out the tea party and would ban any politically charged apparel. She said other examples of prohibited apparel included T-shirts with marijuana plants because it could be considered support for this year's ballot measure to legalize medical marijuana, and shirts from the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, a national advocacy group.

County Elections Director Karen Osborne testified Monday that electioneering is hard to define but that "we know it when we see it."

That fuzzy standard, Teilborg said, had led to inconsistencies such as Osborne testifying that a labor-union or Chamber of Commerce shirt would be allowed even though those groups endorse candidates and propositions, while the tea-party T-shirt was banned because certain tea-party chapters endorsed candidates.

The judge ruled that Maricopa County had no clear standard for what constituted electioneering, which left voters without the information needed to determine what apparel could be banned. He also considered the ban a violation of First Amendment rights.

"Courts have consistently recognized the significant public interest in upholding First Amendment principles," he wrote.

Aftr the hearing, Purcell said she worried that the judge's decision would harm voters.

"It's going to open the floodgates (on electioneering). There's a quiet zone where the voter is supposed to be protected from (partisan politics) . . . with this decision, we're basically going to open the door to it all," she said.

Bolick said he considered the ruling a win for First Amendment rights.

"The idea that somebody could be (charged with a misdemeanor) . . . for wearing the wrong shirt is an offense to a free society. If someone wants to wear a T-shirt with (President Barack) Obama on it, that's just fine," he said.

The restraining order only applies to today's election. A hearing will be set to resolve the electioneering issue in the long term, county attorneys said.

We're going to new a neww prison to hold all of these renegade cheerleaders, savage teenage trick-or-treaters and the latest violent criminals-Tea Party Tee Shirt Voters.

Keeping America safe!

We'll let anyone swarm over the border, as long as they're dressed right at the polls!

"It was just another sneak attack
Of temporary sanity
I had a pleasant stay but now I'm back
From temporary sanity"

-Todd Rundgren