“An Attack on One is an Attack on All’: Time for a Red-State NATO-like Alliance on Boycotts

Below is my column on recent effort to boycott states over their abortion laws, a growing push for states to punish other states with measures like travel bans. While boycotts are an important expression of free speech by citizens, it raises more difficult questions when done by states seeking to coerce other states. It can create a morass of boycotts and tit-for-tat measures. This column suggests a way to end the practice through a simple deterrent measure based on Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. It would be to the benefit of all states (and our federalism system as a whole) to remove state-to-state boycotts from the political arena.

Here is the column:

“An attack on one is an attack on all.” That reference to Article 5 of the NATO treaty is a virtual mantra in Washington these days as “the bedrock of peace and security in Europe for over half a century.” But the benefits of such deterrence should not be lost on another group under increasing threat for their political alliances: America’s red states.

From California to Illinois, legislators are moving to boycott any state contracts with businesses in states with anti-LGBTQ legislation or restrictive abortion laws. At the same time, many Democratic leaders are pressuring companies to boycott red states too.

This past week, California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) called upon Hollywood production companies to stop filming in states such as Georgia or Oklahoma with strict anti-abortion laws. In Georgia, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams has warned that companies will cut off ties with such states, including her own, if they do not change their laws. (Abrams previously was criticized by conservatives for fueling the boycott of her own state which led to the withdrawal of the All-Star Game from Atlanta over election reform laws.)

Such campaigns have succeeded, particularly with private companies. Indeed, in both restricting speech and boycotting states, the left has found greater success with private companies than with voters in pushing their agenda. The New York Times warned pro-life states that they risk their “competitive edge” in the market if they do not change their laws to conform with blue-state views.

The boycott threats have been growing since 2016, when North Carolina was targeted for passing a bill limiting bathroom access by biological gender.

The point of these campaigns is to pressure state officials to ignore the will of a majority of their citizens and pass laws to appeal to corporations and other states in a competitive market. Such boycotts by private citizens or groups are an important form of political speech; various state laws barring state contracts with those who support boycotts of Israel, for example, have been struck down as unconstitutional, although an appellate court recently upheld an Arkansas law.

However, states or companies engaging in such boycotts is a different matter. Many consumers do not want companies like Disney to engage in political debates over issues like transgender rights. One poll showed 67 percent opposed corporate opposition to an “anti-grooming” law, a view that appears to be impacting Disney. Consumers can vote with their pocketbooks in the “go woke, go broke” movement.

For Democratic leaders like California Attorney General Rob Bonta, official boycotts on travel are simply a case of states acting like consumers and “aligning our dollars with our values.” However, it is more than that. It is speaking as a state to isolate and punish states with opposing views on abortion, transgender rights, gun rights and other policies. In a system based on federalism principles, we embraced the model of allowing each state to reach its own conclusions on divisive questions. The result can be consensus around moderate positions that escape both parties, which often are driven by the extremes on issues like abortion.

Take this week’s vote in Kansas, which surprised many by overwhelmingly supporting the preservation of abortion rights. Although many Democrats demand unrestricted abortion rights and many Republicans demand total bans, a Harvard-Harris poll shows 72 percent of Americans would allow abortion only until the 15th week of pregnancy or a more restrictive limit. When states try to coerce other states to yield to their demands on such issues, they hinder state experimentation and expression.

The result is increasingly bizarre. California college sports teams are barred from spending money to travel to any state on the liberal “naughty list” — a problem when you are USC and UCLA and just moved from the Pac 12 to the Big Ten. They now face raising private funds to be able to play in blacklisted states.

There is a way to end this madness. It is an Article 5-like alliance.

While this would ideally be an agreement by all states, red states should pass legislation barring state business or travel with any state that engages in boycotts. The key would be that the agreement must stand on principle, allow no exceptions, and trigger immediate reciprocity: A travel ban on, say, Nebraska would result in a reciprocal ban not just from Nebraska but from every state in the alliance.

In this way, when a state like California targets a state like Utah, it will shoot itself with roughly half of the country. Eventually the administrative and competitive costs of such measures would become prohibitive.

California’s enormous economy has given leaders like Gov. Newsom a sense of impunity in targeting other states. There are now 17 states on California’s banned list under a 2016 law that automatically adds states which discriminate against or remove protections for people on the basis of sex, gender identity or sexual orientation. Imagine if those 17 states had automatic reciprocity laws — add any one of us to a boycott list, and you will be boycotted back by all.

Newsom is running ads in Florida and Texas, telling their residents that “freedom is under attack in your state” — based on a majority of voters there reaching opposing conclusions on controversial issues — and urging Floridians and Texans to move to California. They appear to have two options in Newsom’s mind: Move to California or adopt its positions, so democracy will be safe from itself.

Evan Low, a California lawmaker who authored that state’s ban, put it simply: “The current culture war is not a game.” Indeed — which is why we should look to “the most successful military alliance in history” to end reckless incursions by neighboring states.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

404 thoughts on ““An Attack on One is an Attack on All’: Time for a Red-State NATO-like Alliance on Boycotts”

  1. Kansas did what SCOTUS intended. So did Texas. Anything beyond that is debate that belonged in the states to begin with. Judge after Judge regardless of politics said so. Either we have laws or we don’t, and I greatly prefer people in states sharing their voices and deciding for themselves. 99% of the people crowing the loudest on both sides will never have to make this choice. Let the people decide. Our states are legally free states, whatever 19 year-old college kids or the mainstream media may say to the contrary. This is likely the first time in our history anyone has complained that someone (SCOTUS) gave them the freedom to choose for themselves on an issue. Don’t like it in your state, don’t vote for it. It is getting boring, and if the Dems think this is a winning election issue, they have another thing coming.

  2. A house divided cannot stand. We are well on our way to finding out.

    What they’re saying: “For the most part, people look to be going to a safe space for them, for their ideological identity,” said Ipsos pollster and senior vice president Chris Jackson.

    Justin Gest, an associate professor at George Mason University who studies the politics of demographic change and advises the project, said though politics isn’t usually the primary reason why people move, “People who have other reasons to locate are clearly choosing with some respect to their values. These trends are only going to continue.”
    https://www.axios.com/2022/08/08/two-americas-poll-red-blue-states

  3. It would be to the benefit of all women/girls capable of becoming pregnant for states to stop passing laws denying them bodily autonomy.

    Contrary to Turley’s assertion that “The point of these campaigns is to pressure state officials to ignore the will of a majority of their citizens,” the point is to pressure legislatures that are passing laws inconsistent with the will of the majority of their citizens (which is possible because most citizens are not single-issue voters and because these legislatures were elected when Roe and Casey protected women’s right to previability abortions, so the legislators’ views on abortion don’t actually represent the will of a majority of their citizens).

    “Consumers can vote with their pocketbooks in the “go woke, go broke” movement.”

    And so can potential employees. Most of these businesses have to recruit a subset of workers who are in high demand, and if they remain in anti-abortion states, they will likely lose out on hiring women who don’t want to move to a state that denies them bodily autonomy.

    “In a system based on federalism principles, we embraced the model of allowing each state to reach its own conclusions on divisive questions.”

    And those conclusions may involve boycotting other states. Or — as you propose — joining an alliance.

    FWIW, if such alliances become reality, red states will be penalized more than blue states: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2019/09/10/america-has-two-economies-and-theyre-diverging-fast/

    1. Many of those women who have skill sets in high demand, already have full bodily autonomy.
      It is called “The Pill.”
      This is something the left barely mentions, as if by mentioning this fact would undermine their bodily autonomy argument.

      What that Brookings article fails to mention or take into account, is the higher taxes and higher cost of living in those Blue areas.
      As more than a few people have noted, and many who have picked up and left those costly Blue area for much more affordable areas. Looking at the map, I would say Red areas.
      While Bidenflation has affected the bottom 90%, one’s dollar goes a lot further in a lower tax and cost of living area than a high one.

      Another factor that needs to be taken into account is the rising crime rates in many of these Blue areas. Over the weekend, 53 shot in Chicago. Seattle, Portland, LA, San Fran, all on track for passing last years highs in crime.

      1. The pill is medically contraindicated for many women.
        The pill is not 100% effective.
        The pill does not prevent the rape of a 10 y.o., like the kid in Ohio who had to go to Indiana for an abortion.

        If you understand these things, then you shouldn’t be pretending that the pill solves this issue.
        If you don’t understand these things, then you’re willfully ignorant.

        “many who have picked up and left those costly Blue area for much more affordable areas.”

        Some have. Now look at what kind of work they do, and whether they’re among those who get recruited from other states to do well-paid work.

        1. ATS,
          The pill was but one example.
          My wife had a IUD.
          Later, she got her tubes tided.
          Many of these high skilled women are also either putting off children till later, or not at all. So, the abortion issue is not an issue for them.

          I actually support abortion in cases of rape, incest, or in cases where the woman’s life is in danger.
          I also support abortion up to 15 weeks.

          You mean like Tesla? Caterpillar? Nissei America? Wiley X? Gilad & Gilad?

      2. P.S. The pill also does not treat women are faced with terminating wanted pregnancies for medical reasons, like these people: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2022/04/26/tfmr-pregnancy-termination-for-medical-reasons/

        P.P.S. The pill also does not treat women who are having miscarriages, where a pharmacist will not dispense necessary medication because it’s also used for elective abortions.

        There are many, many reasons why your facile response is inadequate.

        1. Anonymous: P.S., You forgot to mention Plan B, the “morning after pill” which I believe is good for two or three days. Any female who believes she MIGHT become pregnant has that option. It is safer than abortion. Was that an intentional or negligent omission?

          1. Lin,
            Well said.
            As I mentioned, “. . . by mentioning this fact would undermine their bodily autonomy argument.”
            And of course they have state the obvious, like rape or danger to the woman’s life as if only they are entitled to such an opinion.

          2. Plan B is not 100% effective.

            It is worthless when a woman needs an abortion for medical reasons with a wanted pregnancy.

            It is worthless when she’s having a miscarriage and the pharmacist refuses to fill the prescription.

            It is worthless when she’s already using contraception and doesn’t realize for several weeks that her contraception failed.

            A 10 y.o. rape victim may not know about it and may not tell anyone about the rape right away.

            Are these intentional or negligent omissions lin?

              1. My main point was that Upstate Farmer’s argument that “Many of those women who have skill sets in high demand, already have full bodily autonomy. It is called ‘The Pill’” has many holes in it. You couldn’t discern that from my replies to that claim?

                As for your new claim, the anti-abortion laws in some states do not cover all of them. That’s why the 10 y.o. who was raped in Ohio had to go to Indiana for an abortion.

                1. Dear dear dear Anomaly: This is my last response to you, knowing you will want to get the last word in. YOU apparently “couldn’t discern” from MY reply that I said, “the majority,”-and I did not say “all?” I merely pointed out a very-available alternative that you amusingly failed to mention.
                  Moreover, although you were addressing “the pill,” this was a subsection/chain response that started with your overall topic premise of “states must give women bodily autonomy.”
                  I noticed that you frequently cite exceptions to justify your position. You know, we can’t stop all murders, rapes, thefts, disabilities, diseases, famines, poisons, diseases. We do the best we can. I would suggest that the majority of laws address issues that affect the majority of circumstances, not the exceptions, and the 10-year old was nonetheless accommodated. Her family had to take her across the river to Indiana. Dobbs returned to the states the right to enact laws reflective of their constituents. Are you suggesting that the law enacted by a majority of Ohioans must be repealed because of this VERY rare circumstance? ( I am not an Ohioan.) The FDA does not revoke the license for a pharmaceutical because a person may have died in an untoward reaction to it. States are not required to revoke the death penalty because a convicted criminal died in a way not anticipated by the protocol, or even because of negligence on the part of prison officials. That’s all I”m saying, no more, no less.
                  Please accept that we can differ on how to address the issue without repeatedly calling people names.

                  1. ROFL that you start with “Dear dear dear Anomaly” and end with “Please accept that we can differ on how to address the issue without repeatedly calling people names.” Take your own advice.

                    1. I said you could get the last word in, so I will NOT address the substantive issue we discussed. But I WILL address your NEW comment, “take your own advice.” “Anomaly” is not name-calling. It reflects my truthful assessment of you that you tend to engage in/create circuitous paths and tangential arguments. I find it out-of-the-ordinary on this site, which makes you an anomaly to me. That’s what anomaly means, n’est ce pas? Thanks anyway.

    2. lol. Dude, states routinely pass laws that the majority of the population don’t like. And it doesn’t matter if you want to point the finger because IT IS BOTH SIDES. I left CA in the 90s because I saw the path it was following. And but for the tech explosion saving it, it was in serious trouble.

      But as time has gone on the liberal-caused rot has started up again as CA, effectively, became a one-party state. The Republican elected to a State-wide office was Schwarzenegger who was a RINO. So now CA is suffering from unaffordable housing, economy cracking as businesses move out due to high taxes, high crime and high costs coupled with the CA educational system collapse…

      Blue States are not paradises. They’re full of problems. Problems liberals ignore or, worse, blame on others!

    3. Bodily autonomy.

      Whatever happened to bodily autonomy when it came to requiring bars, restaurants, and public events to forbid people from entering unless they showed proof of receiving one newly-developed vaccine?

      What ever happened to bodily autonomy when there were proposals to require airlines to prohibit people from boarding a domestic flight unless they proved they took one newly-developed vaccine?

      1. Private businesses have long been able to create rules for their customers, or have you never seen the sign “No shirt, no shoes, no service?”

    4. It would be to the benefit of all women/girls capable of becoming pregnant for states to stop passing laws denying them bodily autonomy.If they would protect life they are part of creating

  4. This red state alliance should also follow Gov. DeSantis’ lead in cracking down ‘woke’ corporations and institutions conforming to the WEF’s ESG scoring system.

    ESG metrics are a social credit scoring system designed to transform society by changing the way businesses and, in some cases, their customers are evaluated. Under ESG, companies are awarded or punished with scores based on their commitment to causes favored by elites, not solely traditional business considerations, such as profit, revenue, the quality of goods and services, and employee satisfaction.
    https://thefederalist.com/2022/08/08/ron-desantis-puts-woke-banking-on-notice-that-political-discrimination-wont-be-tolerated/

  5. This is nothing more than trying to avoid the consequences of red states choices. Companies will not want to have their business in a state were women’s liberty is reduced. They are less free because of their policies on abortion abs reproductive healthcare. Same goes for LGBTQ legislation denying their existence. Many in that community are talented employees and even business owners. In red states they face a hostile environment based on ignorance and bigotry that is being sanctioned by state government.

    Long term damaging ramifications are far more likely in red states as more and more restrictions on women’s liberty and the LGBTQ community are enacted. Red states are actively taking individual liberty away while arguing they are for liberty. The hypocrisy and irony is lost on many people in those states.

    Turley’s idea is not only horrible it ignores the fact that this is a consequence of really bad policies. Those states are actively seeking to legislate travel to liberal states for women seeking legal abortions and seeking punishment of state residents who even contemplate traveling for that purpose. That’s further attacking individual liberty on their own residents.

    Red states are going to fare much worse economically in the long run. This is just one of the many consequences of their decisions that are going to crop up.

    1. CA and NY are losing population as more and more people get fed up with high costs of living, taxes, crime, the COVID lockdowns and wokeism.
      State gaining from the mass exodus are generally Red States in the sun-belt.
      Also of note, CA and NY both lost congressional seats due to population loss.

      More than a few businesses have left Blue states for Red ones.

      As we saw from the VA governor race, minorities (Asians, Indians, Hispanics) resoundingly rejected wokeism, especially in the classroom.

      In the long run, Red states will have a better educated populace as they will reject wokeism, embrace real education with focus on reading, writing, math, sciences, and history (all of it).
      With more companies that have moved to Red states, a larger tax base to draw from, a better educated populace, Red states stand to do better than their woke counterparts.

    2. Compare Texas and Florida to Illinois and New Jersey. There was a fantastic comparison between those states during the last meltdown. I think we need another one today.

      Texas and Florida came out fantastic. Illinois and New Jersey came out as debtors.

  6. “ However, states or companies engaging in such boycotts is a different matter. Many consumers do not want companies like Disney to engage in political debates over issues like transgender rights. One poll showed 67 percent opposed corporate opposition to an “anti-grooming” law, a view that appears to be impacting Disney. Consumers can vote with their pocketbooks in the “go woke, go broke” movement.”

    Turley leaves out the fact that companies have 1st amendment rights. Turley still hasn’t discussed the implications of punishing companies for exercising their 1st amendment rights. Florida directly violated Disney’s right to free speech when it punished it for expressing their views on the governor’s don’t say gay bill.

    1. The word “gay,” is not in the bill.
      The bill protects children from being sexualized at a age where they cannot even understand the concept of sex.
      Many of them still believe in Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny.

      And why are teachers bringing their political views or lifestyle into the classroom? When I was in school there was a separation of a teachers personal life and their professional life.

      1. Upstatefarmer,

        “ The word “gay,” is not in the bill.”

        No, but it is obviously implied.

        This isn’t about “sexualizing” children and no, teachers are not bringing their political views or lifestyle into the classroom. What conservatives don’t want is to acknowledge the reality that IS going on outside the classroom. Kids are going to be naturally curious about what they see OUTSIDE the classroom. That includes an LGBTQ community that is more open in society and the news they hear, or discussions among their parents of friends about that community and why they exist. Letting kids be aware that it exists and that their own teachers may be part of that community is not “sexualizing” or “grooming”’ then into the lifestyle. That’s coming from bigots and racists themselves who are far more scared about the idea that the LGBTQ community exists.

        Being honest with kids let’s them understand that those who are different are not evil or wrong.

        Conservatives love the idea of liberty and freedom, until it involves someone else who doesn’t share their “values” and “views”. Instead of leaving them alone and letting them exercise THEIR Liberty and freedom they are being demonized and persecuted because they don’t like their lifestyle which is how they exercise their liberty.

        Simply making kids aware that they exist is not an attempt to convert or “suggest” they may be like them.

        1. Again, Svelaz is pushing his personal assumed right to sexualize 5-8 year olds with his habits. He doesn’t recognize parent rights, and where his rights end. That is why we have jails for people convicted of sex crimes.

            1. Hullbobby, the obnoxious name calling of those who do no such thing as “groomers” is perpetrated by scared bigots who are willfully ignorant. This is being spread by those taking advantage of the more gullible and naive to scare them into demonizing others because they are different. This is no different than what black people endured when they were the target of those who spewed fear onto the gullible and weak minded. It’s truly sad that it’s still an effective way to attack others simply because they are different.

          1. Anonymous (S. Meyer),

            Being an ignorant idiot does not give you license to slander others.

            Nobody is “sexualizing” 5-8 year olds. Nobody. The only people making that claim are the idiots and the willfully ignorant.

            Parents rights includes parents who are ok with their kids being made aware that the LGBTQ community exists. That some of their teachers are part of that community. That’s all. It doesn’t involve “grooming” or “sexualizing” them That is all coming from bigots and the willfully ignorant who are intent on demonizing others because they are simply ignorant bigots. It’s as simple as that.

            Parents are being whipped into a state of fear by these falsehoods and unfounded claims that are more consistent with white supremacist rallies than honest conversation. These are the same people who falsely claimed the AIDS epidemic was a result of gays and anyone who had it was gay.

            Your slander is more telling of your scaredy-cat fears than your supposed rationality.

            1. RE:”Parents rights includes parents who are ok with their kids being made aware that the LGBTQ community exists.” Your entire narrative is a series of personal assumptions. and conclusions. You have presented nothing objective and incontrovertible with which to support them. At best, it would be reasonable to assume, given the controversy abroad in the land, that a parent[s] or legal guardian would be asked to give written consent to their child being present during any discussion of the LGBTQ community in the classroom setting .What they’d opt for outside is, of course, within their control.

            2. “Being an ignorant idiot does not give you license to slander others.

              Svelaz, the word you are looking for is libel, not slander. The right to insult you comes from your persistent lying to others about what was or wasn’t said. You provide continuous abuse by denying the facts when provided. This has been proven multiple times by reposting prior postings proving you lie. You didn’t bother responding but continued on the same path you were traveling before.

              You are a troll and an ignorant one at that. You deserve nothing but insult and scorn. Don’t expect me to change the way I speak to you. You don’t deserve anything better from anyone on the blog.

              In the past, I provided you with data from Christopher Rufo and others. That data included lesson plans, transcripts, statements, and other things. You can debate those facts but running away only to repeat the same argument is abusive.

              You quoted articles that you didn’t even read. I had to inform you that the supposed learned article you based comments on was written by a student, not a Ph.D. This is the type of person you are.

              The only thing I can say is you should stay away from elementary schools.

              Hullbobby was right when he said no one should reply to you. I will but I definitely won’t be polite until you change your debating standards.

        2. It’s creepy that you want to talk sex to young children. You can call us all the names in the book like racist and bigot, but at least we are no child molesters.

          “they don’t like their lifestyle which is how they exercise their liberty.”
          Like spreading monkey pox?

          1. “ It’s creepy that you want to talk sex to young children.”

            That’s not what anyone is saying they want. Nobody is advocating this. The only ones claiming this are bigots and the willfully ignorant who are using the idea to scare parents and those too ignorant to know better into demonizing and putting down others who are different.

            The entire concept of “liberty and freedom” is that anyone can be free to be who they are. Here you have conservatives who claim this nation is about liberty and freedom and is sacrosanct, but are working very hard to deny it for a group that is different. Nobody is “forcing” or “grooming” children or “indoctrinating” them with an agenda. The only people making such claims are the real bigots and the willfully ignorant who wish to control what everyone should be. Religious zealots and conservatives.

            1. RE:”The entire concept of “liberty and freedom” is that anyone can be free to be who they are.” Liberties and freedoms are slowly acquired through age, the growth process, and education. There are circumstances where youth may be fully emancipated or partially emancipated through the courts, health care services is one of them. Majority in most cases is age 18. Other examples of age control are voting, operating a motor vehicle, motor cycle, or motorboat, serving or being served alcohol, and sexual activity. Absent all of that, tradition has held that parents decide what the limits are..

            2. So you believe 5 year olds shouldbe able to enter school with a gun, you know, liberty, right?

              How about the parents freedom and liberty to raise their kids how they want and not have adults talk sex witht hem?

              Why do you feel the need to talk to children about sex?

        3. Svelaz: Respectfully, I don’t have time to read your whole comment but the very first few lines were enough: “… no, teachers are not bringing their political views or lifestyle into the classroom. What conservatives don’t want is to acknowledge the reality that IS going on outside the classroom.
          May I suggest to you that many many many teachers DO bring their political views and lifestyle into the classroom. Most of it is subtle indoctrination/grooming, but do you even remember the case involving Orange Coast (California) teacher Olga Perez Stable Cox, who was secretly recorded by a student during her anti-Trump tirade and her demand that conservative students stand up and be identified so that she and other classmates could ridicule them? Younger, impressionable students don’t have the know-how or understanding to do this, and I APPLAUD parents who engage their children to tell them what the teacher taught or said today?
          As to “What conservatives don’t want is to acknowledge the reality that IS going on outside the classroom,” I say this, dear Svelaz: what goes on OUTSIDE of the classroom is 100% within the purview/responsibility/authority/control, and choice of parents, not teachers.
          Where is Anonymous, who demands citation and evidence, when we need him? Would he/she rate your statements T/F?

          1. Lin,

            “ May I suggest to you that many many many teachers DO bring their political views and lifestyle into the classroom.”

            That’s a claim based on one example. That’s painting the issue with a very broad brush.

            Students can’t avoid what they see outside the classroom and naturally students WILL bring it up in classrooms. Teachers are not “grooming” or “indoctrinating” students on this issue and it’s an insult to teachers who know how to handle these situations without threats of prosecution because they dare answer a question.

            These claims of “grooming” or “sexualizing” kids are nothing more than pure scaremongering from true bigots and conservatives prudes who demand everybody agree to their views by sharing the crap out of parents and take advantage of their own ignorance.

            Demonizing those who identify as LGBTQ and insinuating that to students when they know teachers are forbidden from talking about it or discussing it reinforces the idea that the LGBTQ community is somehow evil or something to be feared. That’s wrong and one way to address it is in school of s student asks or if they end up discussing it. It’s already part of this country’s social history why avoid discussing it. Teachers are smart enough to know that young kids don’t understand what goes on outside of the classroom and they are NOT indoctrinating or sexualizing kids.

            1. Svelaz: Thank you for responding-and so rapidly. I knew you would.
              1) You state that my “claim is based on one example.” Actually, I was a frequently-requested substitute teacher who witnessed first hand the suspensions of teachers for doing what I “claimed.” 2) Don’t want to fill up this blog with more examples, but if you are going to challenge me, maybe I will. Indeed, just yesterday or day before, there was MSM news of a male pre-school teacher indicted for attempting to sexually groom his charges.Since you repeatedly said “nobody,” I have already shown your statement to be false. I need not prove more.
              3) I just don’t like global statements, like, “Nobody is “forcing” or “grooming” children or “indoctrinating” them with an agenda. The only people making such claims are the real bigots and the willfully ignorant who wish to control what everyone should be. Religious zealots and conservatives.” Or, “no, teachers are not bringing their political views or lifestyle into the classroom.” Or, how about, “Nobody is “sexualizing” 5-8 year olds. Nobody. The only people making that claim are the idiots and the willfully ignorant. ”
              “Nobody” is a dispositively distinct word, Svelaz. Didn’t your school teach you not to do that?

              1. Lin, your examples you personally witnessed did they involve the extreme examples everyone cites? How can we be sure you’re not leaving out context or circumstances? As a substitute teacher have you witnessed students lying about their teachers actions? Surely students aren’t all innocent in these circumstances as well.

                Students recording classes without context can easily be exploited by others to paint an entirely different narrative. That’s not an say there have been instances where it has been true. But using own rationale. Conservatives also use global statements when describing “grooming” and sexualization” if students to pander to parents fears for political gain.

                Should we state that Catholic Churches are where students are groomed by priest pedophiles and we shouldn’t send more kids to catholic schools? Because we know he church is complicit in the grooming of altar boys and indoctrinating them on how to accept pedophilia, right?

                Teachers are being subjected to those unfair accusations because of a few instances. Should he ban priests from teaching about morality because they have pedophiles in their schools?

                1. Svelaz: Respectfully, I call your attention to your changing tune. First, it was “Nobody,” but “Nobody.”
                  Now, without apology, it is, “..a few instances..” (tempered by, “How can we be sure you’re not leaving out context or circumstances?”
                  Next, after we refer you to many, many, many more, examples, it will be what????
                  Yours truly, lin, (or as you say, a “real bigot and willfully ignorant Religious zealot and conservative, simply ignorant bigot.”
                  (And probably deplorable too.)

                  1. Lin, that is why Svelaz doesn’t deserve the time of day or any respect. He does this all the time. It is fine to argue policy, but that is not what he is doing. He is obstructing and wasting the time of others.

                    He is a troll. Under this and other names could be paid according to some, but I don’t see why, as he makes the left look bad.

              2. Lin, you might appreciate the following information on this subject. Note, Svelaz is a paid troll. He works out of his mancave in West Hollywood, California where he gets paid to troll DNC talking points for Act Blue. He uses numerous sock puppet accounts, all parroting the same exacting talking points. There are many DNC trolls on here, and you can recognize them in a nanosecond with their screeds. Their sole purpose on here is to attack, distract and promote DNC talking points. Fin

                Helpful info on this topic:

                The Beginning of the End of ‘Gender-Affirming Care’?
                “Britain is closing the infamous Tavistock Centre. Finland and Sweden have radically revised their treatment guidelines. But American doctors are advertising surgeries to children on TikTok.”

                But on Thursday, Britain’s National Health Service announced that it was closing down Tavistock for good—and, in effect, rebuking the common American medical approach known as “gender-affirming care” for treating children with gender dysphoria. This can include a mix of puberty suppressants, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries, interventions in minors that can lead to irreversible effects.
                https://www.commonsense.news/p/the-beginning-of-the-end-of-gender

                the above link is hosted on Bari Weiss’s substack platform, a married lesbian Jew former WSJ and NYT writer, who has forcefully denounced the TRANS hysteria, and has come out swinging to defend children against leftists and their “gender affirming” child abuse.

                Here’s another good article from Bari’s substack again, but this one was written by a nurse who was a whistleblower for the UK Tavistock Centre.

                How Tavistock Came Tumbling Down
                I was a nurse working on a team that recklessly prescribed puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to kids. I blew the whistle in 2005. Now the government is finally listening.
                https://www.commonsense.news/p/how-tavistock-came-tumbling-down

                Note: the Left uses groups of people to peddle their talking points. Hispanics, blacks, Asians, Gays and Lesbians, immigrants, etc, are merely widgets for the Left to assume the role as moral guardian. The response of the Mayors of Washington DC and NYC to the bussing of immigrants from Texas, reveal their true stripes. They enjoy talking about their virtuous crusades, but they want nothing to do with these groups when they show up in the backyard. Sadly, conservatives are no different. People on the Left and Right are NIMBY these days, gluttonous and slothful slugs

                Cheers

                1. Estovir: Yikes! Not familiar with this, so thank you for info. It would be nice if we were neighbors. We could have such great talks/exchanges/expansions.

          2. Lin,
            Do you recall the teacher in CA who removed the American flag, and then had her students recite the pledge of allegiance to a pride banner she had in the classroom?
            I would call that bringing one’s political views to work.
            Recently a group of students from a Catholic school in NYC went to church, thinking they were going for service. Instead, they were made to watch a drag show.
            Those are just two off the top of my head.

            I have nothing against the LGBTQ+ community. I have friends and family part of the LGBTQ+ community. The discussion of sex should be done at a age appropriate level. Like around 7th-8th grade like I was taught. Prior to that, it should be the parents decision.
            Not K-3rd. Not teachers.

            1. UpstateFarmer: I do hope Mr. Svelaz reads your post. Yes I remember the CA one (but forgot about it); no, I did not know about the NYC students. Yes I agree with “parents’ decision,” as you pose it. Please see my additional response to Svelaz at 3;41–our minds were crossing/touching in space, because you posted at 3:42!

              1. Lin,
                I am perfectly indifferent if Svelaz reads my post or not.
                I only wanted to point out your example, and the two I listed where not some one offs.
                There are many more, but you have to look to alt-media, and MSM and big tech go out of their way to not report or censor.

                Again, I want to state what I think more than a few of the professor’s readers think when it comes to this issue,
                1) Nothing against the LGBTQ+ community.
                2) The discussion of sex should be done at a age appropriate level.
                3) Prior to that, it should be the parents decision. Not K-3rd. Not teachers.
                4) To add: Parents should be involved in their children’s education. More than a few studies have shown, when parents are involved, the child does better. And that is what is most important. We can have an “aware” and “respectful”society, but we need one that can read, write, do math and all those other things without hate and division the woke promote.

        4. Being honest with kids let’s them understand that those who are different are not evil or wrong.

          Defining evil, and different are subjective and requires the constant guidance from parents. The Government is littered with constant failures attempting to lead is such areas.
          The government ALWAYS mess up in this arena.

    2. This is a bill to keep people like Svelaz from teaching K-3 about his own sexual habits, transgenderism, etc. Svelaz shouldn’t be near any elementary school.

      The right for corporations to petition the government has not been abridged. The crony capitalism of Reedy Creek was eliminated, and Disney can petition the state as before. Disney, a California company was trying to import Californian morality into the state of Florida using its massive influence. That is something corporations should not be doing unless it is an integral part of their company’s economic well-being.

      We have let too many companies act against America while acting favorably to our enemy’s power that is undeserved. Some type of corporatism or fascism is creeping out from such activities.

      1. S. Meyer, slander is is not a good way to start a post with.

        Since you have no idea what you’re talking about and rely on proclamations from bigots and religious zealots it’s not surprising that you believe whatever they tell you instead of actually seeking to understand the issue. That’s what gullibility does to you.

        “ The right for corporations to petition the government has not been abridged. The crony capitalism of Reedy Creek was eliminated, and Disney can petition the state as before.”

        Their right to exercise free speech has. And that’s exactly the problem. This had nothing to do with crony capitalism at all. This was punishment for Disney having an opinion opposing the governor’s “don’t say gay” law.

        Nobody complained about Disney’s Reedy Creek agreement. It has been far more beneficial to residents than what they will get now because according to the law. All debt Disney had on that agreement reverts back to the local governments. A billion and change.

        “ Disney, a California company was trying to import Californian morality into the state of Florida using its massive influence. That is something corporations should not be doing unless it is an integral part of their company’s economic well-being.”

        That’s one massive lie from S. Meyer. They were supporting their employees and they objected to the state attacking their lifestyle choices. This IS integral to their company’s economic well-being. But Florida chose to directly violate their first amendment rights by punishing them because they expressed objection to the law the governor pushed thru.

        Companies are private entities. They can choose whatever issues they choose to support. Government punishing them for it is a direct violation of their constitutional rights. What you support is actual fascism.

        1. “S. Meyer, slander is is not a good way to start a post with.”

          It can’t be slander and it is not even libel, but you refuse to buy that dictionary which probably wouldn’t be much use to you.

          What I said is accurate: “This is a bill to keep people like Svelaz from teaching K-3 about his own sexual habits, transgenderism, etc. “

          Tell me what is wrong with that opinion? You can’t.

          “Their right to exercise free speech has.”

          No it hasn’t. If you decide to start a war with another, they will fight back. Disney can even repeat all those things they said before. There are penalties for starting a fight and Disney got a 50B bloody nose.

          The rest of your narrative is pure stupidity. Now tell me what the slander was.

          1. S. Meyer,

            “ This is a bill to keep people like Svelaz from teaching K-3 about his own sexual habits, transgenderism, etc. Svelaz shouldn’t be near any elementary school.”

            “ Tell me what is wrong with that opinion? You can’t.

            That’s not an opinion. This is a declarative statement. You mention me by nene and insinuate that I teach K-3 kids about my own sexual habits and that I shouldn’t be near any elementary school.

            You’re engaging in libel.

            “ No it hasn’t. If you decide to start a war with another, they will fight back. Disney can even repeat all those things they said before. There are penalties for starting a fight and Disney got a 50B bloody nose.”

            Punishing a company because it expressed an objection or opinion about the government IS a direct violation of the 1st amendment’s prohibiting the GOVERNMENT from infringement on their right to express their objection free from retaliation by GOVERNMENT.

            What Florida did is exactly what the 1st amendment prohibits.

            You’re too stupid to understand that basic violation.

            “Fighting back” is the violation you dumba$$.

            1. Where did I mention you were a teacher? Nowhere.

              I am glad you finally learned the difference between libel and slander, though opinion is neither, and Svelaz is not a person.

              The State of Florida did not tell Disney it couldn’t say what it wanted. The State of Florida lived up to its duty to protect children and parents. Florida made a mistake creating the Reedy Creek district. Florida corrected that error.

              It might not have been the way one wanted it to occur, but in the end one can’t complain about the results.

        2. Their right to exercise free speech has. And that’s exactly the problem

          You are the one lecturing speech comes with consequences. Disney experienced consequences. They are still free to speek

  7. I regret that America is being reduced to the lowest common denominator. This is because there is more on the bottom than the cream that rise[s] to the top.

  8. Something to consider, CA passed a law (Proposition 12) requiring spacing requirements for laying hens, calves for veal, and sows.
    The law applies to all agriculture products sold in CA, even if they come from out of state.
    So, what do I do?
    Give up that market?
    Sell only to Red States?
    Boycott Blue States or even Blue cities? Blue counties?
    Why stop with agriculture?

    You can see this can get out of control.

    1. You could choose to treat your animals ethically. It’s telling that you don’t even recognize that as an option.

      1. ATS,
        Actually, I do.
        All mine are pasture raised. All grass fed, organic. I practice Management Intensive Grazing.
        But your lack of understanding of agro-economics on a mass scale is telling.
        That is why you are truly ATS.

      2. ATS talks of ethics when the Biden Administrations policies might cause famine in third world nations. I wonder how low on the morality scale ATS resides.

        1. Actually, I am watching this closely.
          It is not just the Biden admin policies that may cause famine in the third world.
          As Trump pointed out, the EU dependence on Russia energy was bad policy and that turned out to be correct, but the EU is now going to suck in energy at the expense of third world countries.
          Also, we are seeing an unprecedented food crisis that started even prior to the Russian invasion of the Ukraine. The invasion only exacerbated the situation.
          We are looking at no kidding, world wide 2011 Arab Spring like civil unrest.
          Recent reporting has it that food banks here in the US are already experiencing difficulty providing for those who have to turn to food banks to make ends meet. It has been noted Bidenflation has reduced the purchasing power of the food banks and the food banks are reporting 10% of those using the food banks, are new users. That is an additional 10% to the already users.
          The recent jobs report? Yeah, looks good. But when you dig down into the numbers, the Labor Participation Rate is down (meaning less people working), and the House Hold Rate is up.
          Translation, fewer people working. Those who are working, are working two jobs to make ends meet.
          Not better.

      3. treat your animals ethically. The govt forcing ethics. That always ends well.

        Of course the demands are not ethical. The square footage demands is swine production sacrifices the lives of pigs. But it does create warm fuzzy feelings in the ones writing random rules with no foundation in science. Poultry production has moved to buildings 4 to 5 stories tall.

  9. I love this. Let’s have all the shithole red states go into deep poverty. They are already women killing religious nuts.

    1. Red States that lifted the COVID mandates are the ones who lead their states out of recession, had lower unemployment, and stronger economies.
      Blue States lagged.

      1. Sammy lives in California, West Hollywood / Los Angeles area where he works remotely for Act Blue, that runs a trolling farm funded by George Soros. Sammy is oblivious to people outside his mancave, never mind the economies of red states. His most pressing reality is keeping all of the email addresses he uses straight for the numerous fake accounts he runs on here. He likely uses an N95 Mask to drink his Caramel Macchiato Venti Coffee delivered by a Hispanic from Starbucks.

        ✊🏽

    2. Sammy, keep stepping over feces, needles and urine on your way to watch a smash and grab at the latest ANTIFA rally. Oh and watch out because that homeless guy behind you might have a knife.

  10. Why stop at opposing boycotts. Is it not just as offensive go good order among the states to prevent one state (say Texas) from poaching corporations from another state (say California). Such actions are as harmful to relations among the states as is boycotting.

    1. How is it the fault of a state to have a more business friendly environment, lower taxes, than another?
      If a business wants to leave one state based on profits, the bottom line for another, that is their decision and freedom to do so.

      Now, if a state wants to pass a law preventing businesses from leaving, I think they call that totalitarianism.

  11. “Take this week’s vote in Kansas, which surprised many by overwhelmingly supporting the preservation of abortion rights.”

    No it didn’t. Any state with trigger laws that actually put the issue before its citizens rather than through a gerrymandered legislature would have the exact same result.

      1. You’re 0 for 1 with no other referendums at this point (although there is still time to lobby for them in trigger law states before the November election). So your belief has you batting at .000 currently.

          1. I understood what the Anon @ 1:27 said. If you’re too stupid to understand, you must be Anonymous the Stupid.

  12. RE:”Newsom is running ads in Florida and Texas, telling their residents that “freedom is under attack in your state”….and urging Floridians and Texans to move to California” Tantamount to Vladimir Putin inviting the residents of those states to come and spend their winters in Moscow. There’s enough known about the travails of California from its cities to its countryside such that the residents of Florida and Texas are astute enough not to step in it. In addition, if Newsome has serious aspirations for the Oval Office, he’d best watch where he’s walking as well.

  13. Not sure about state action, but I’ve imposed my own boycott of those states. May not be much, but not a dime will I spend there

  14. Imposing your will on others is the hallmark of totalitarianism. Whether it’s in the schools or businesses, the woke mob clearly believes coercion is an acceptable tactic. Democrats are raising this behavior to the level of policy. Then they hide behind a 3-hour riot at the WH to fearmonger their gullible masses into thinking the “other” guys are the fascists.

  15. The NATO suggestion sounds well and good IF the end result were commity and good governance of this Federal Republic – BUT… We are now aware that the end result for the prog/left is not that but the destruction of that Federal Republic and the establishment of a tyrannical socialist “utopian state” without all the fuss and bother contained in that “evil” document; The Constitution. While Turley wants to offer civilized and accommodating solutions, his apparent naivite ignors the facts on the ground.

  16. Good thoughts, but remember, we are dealing with lefties.

    Petulant, impulse driven, vindictive, and given to senseless virtue signaling.

    Appeals to reason don’t work with those people.

Leave a Reply