When you "re-elect" us, we Republicans will continue to implement the following platform:
o We will make laws promoting the Judeo-Christian family unit and preventing all alternative or vicarious ways to channel your sexuality.
o We will persecute people who are homosexual, those who do not adhere to the Christian religion and those who are not white.
o We will force girls and women to gestate UNwanted pregnancies to term against their will. Despite the fact that the Bible never condemns abortion, nor does it ever defend human life in any form that exists prior to birth, as people. If anyone challenges the irrationality and/or hatefulness of this stance, we will respond by lying that "the Bible says so."
o We will force women to have unwanted children and make them work while their children are growing up alone.
o After forcing single pregnant women to bear unwanted children, we further will force them to give them up for adoption, and then later drive those kids into the military to be cannon fodder for the unconstitutional wars that we lyingly start and then perpetuate.
o We will never make direct references to Biblical passages in which Jesus commands His followers to show compassion for their neighbors. With a platform like this, we could never begin to defend ourselves if challenged on that!
o We will disavow, disregard, and disrespect the value and worth of any and all non-Judeo/Christian religions, and disparage and discredit them whenever we think we can get away with it.
o Even though none of us have ever yet discovered any way that opposite-sex marriage (which we will continue to deceptively call "traditional") could possibly need to be "defended" against same-sex marriage, we will continue the charade of claiming that the latter is harmful. If anyone challenges us on this, we'll cite the Bible -- while omitting, of course, any mention of the fact that the Bible never appointed nor authorized any person or group to act as a Gestapo to enforce its precepts versus society in general. And of course, in keeping with that, we will never make any reference to 1 Cor. 5:12-13!
o We will take the gloves off large trans and multi-national corporations and allow them to run roughshod over you and the environment.
o We will give these conglomerate businesses the ability to push down your wages as far as possible.
o We will allow companies to eliminate your health benefits and pensions.
o We will continue to expand the powers of the executive branch and render oversight by Congress irrelevant.
o We will abolish unions to take away any voice and collective power you have as workers.
o We will create a new class of people called the 'working poor' who work full time jobs but can't afford basic living expenses.
o While we're lowering your standard of living, we will remove all of the public services and the safety net that you'll need to survive.
o We willl destroy competition and promote monopoly power, particularly in the media, energy, prison and military manufacturing industries.
o We will allow, promote, create and support immense monopolies that crush small and medium sized businesses.
o We will represent and implement the will of these massive monopolies no matter what the people say or want.
o We will increase our stranglehold on national, state and local government and continue to make them more subservient to business.
o We will penalize you if you are not married, and we will make it more difficult for you to form relationships that might lead to marriage.
o We will ensure mass unemployment, start wars and send poor children off to these wars so that we can make more money.
o Multiculturalism is fine as long as it works to our advantage. At all other times, it is anathema, and should be publicly decried as being detrimental to American "values."
o We will expand the reach of law, the powers of law enforcement and allow government officers to operate in complete secrecy.
o We will imprison you and your children longer and longer for petty offenses and we will torture you when we think it is needed.
o If your skin is not white, we will tolerate you only as long as you work for very low wages and cower in front of us.
o We will tax corporations and rich people less and give them much more in return for campaing donations.
o We will tax the middle class more and give them much less in return whether they donate to campaigns or not.
o We will do away with the constitution and the rights of individuals in favor of the rights of corporations.
o We will make sure our seniors have to work to make ends meet and we will ensure that they will have little to no free health care available.
o We will continue to cut services and funding for disabled or wounded war veterans and their families.
o We will make sure that your child is educated only enough for menial work or entry into the armed forces.
o We will use your tax money to put our children through private schools while your children get the worst education possible.
o We will lie to you at every turn.
o We will make all our decisions in secret. If you start sticking your nose in where it doesn't belong, we will throw you in jail with no bail, charges or lawyer.
o Even though the rest of the world easily sees our hypocrisy, and loathes America for it, we will continue to imprison suspects for years at secret locations in foreign lands, and at Guantanamo, torture them at will, and deprive them of the fair trials they otherwise could expect our Constitution to guarantee them if they were on U.S. soil.
o Because we were able to get away with it so blatantly in 2000 and 2004, we will continue with the methods we've developed to ensure perpetual Presidential power and occupancy of the White House. And of course, whenever challenged on this by anyone, we will simply refer to them as "conspiracy theorists." Our nation of sheep hasn't yet learned to become properly suspicious of those who are derisive of conspiracies. Someday, they may start wondering just WHY a person would be so anxious to make fun of conspiracies, and realize that conspiring isn't all that difficult, and happens all the time. But until that day arrives, if ever, we'll just continue with the formula for dealing with this that works.
o Even though we probably have already accomplished this KEY objective, we will continue to stuff the U.S. Supreme Court with anti-personal-liberties "conservative" justices every chance we get. Now that the High Court no longer has an egalitarian majority, for the first time in 80 years, we can have our way with the entire system!
o If you disagree with us, you are a traitor and will be ostracized, imprisoned and killed at our discretion. You are irrelevant, but we do like to play the game of getting you to vote for us.
Monday, December 31, 2007
The REAL Republican Platform -- 2008
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Why the ANTI-CHOICE Agenda is Doomed to Extinction
"You simply wish to kill peoples' freedom to live their lives as they wish, shackling them to live as you demand that they do. You wish to kill not their bodies, but something more important, their hopes and their dreams.
"I have seen almost nothing except this type hate and vitriol spewed forth from the postings of many Anti-Choice 'persons' [in Usenet]. Not all are like this, but many are. This type of post demonstrates the desire for control over women, their subservience, and the intolerance of any ideas except their own. They would fit right in with the Taliban.
"People don't like hate, and they don't like hateful agendas. It is people like [those described] above that make people see the true face of the far religious right, and of the anti-abortion movement. People are repulsed by such hate, and will join the opposite end of the political spectrum just to distance themselves from it. It's for the reasons of this type of hate and forced subservience required that the far religious right and the anti-abortion movements will eventually fall into disrepute and be effectively swept under the carpet of history where it belongs, with such groups and the KKK and other hateful, segregationist groups."
A Discussion of Casual Sex...
Control-Freakism vs. Open-Mindedness
I originally posted this in several Usenet Newsgroups on July 3, 1998, and repeated it, unchanged, in 2006, and now present it here, unchanged, today -- Dec. 30, 2007. It was written as a challenge and refutation of a narrow-minded viewpoint on casual sex. For those interested in the subsequent discussions, it can be found in Google's Usenet archives under the subject header, "Sex outside of marriage is a sin," in these groups: alt.abortion, alt.abortion. inequity, alt.christnet, alt.christnet.second-coming.real-soon-now, alt.fan.jesus-christ, alt.religion.christian.episcopal, alt.religion.christian.lutheran, alt.support.abortion
To keep track of the participants, the following attributes apply for each comment:
None = Craig Chilton
> = Lisa D. (Open-minded virgin, by choice.)
>> = Craig Chilton
>>> = Theodore M. Seeber (Draw your own conclusion.)
>>>> = Craig Chilton
>>>>> = Theodore M. Seeber>>>>> It's selfishness to have sex when you don't want a child. <<<<<
>>>> A totally unrealistic attitude. <<<<>>> Only for people who have no self control. <<<
>> Self-control applies to actions that people may be tempted to take, but really don't want to do. Such as eating a sundae while on a strict diet. If enjoying recreational sex is a self-control issue for some people, I'm very glad NOT to number among them. <<
> In some ways it is a matter of self-control. Eating a sundae while you're on a diet is giving in to temptation, where the consequences are something you'd rather not deal with. Same with recreational sex. Temptation... (maybe) consequences you'd rather avoid. <
Life without a bit of living on the edge would be akin to television programming if the likes of Donald Wildmon and his scissors-happy American Family Association ever got its way with it (Perish forbid!!!): Pablum.
People who live TOTALLY sheltered lives from all risks probably deserve the boring existence they have in return. (Or, as a button I once saw, read: "Chastity is its own punishment!) :)
To each his own, of course, but for me, VIVA safe recreational sex. Some risks, but at an acceptable level.
Sex is the world's favorite form of recreation.
> I thought that was soccer? :-) <
Scarily, you may be right... at least among soccer fans. Seems that a poll of men was taken lately (caveat: I have no idea how reliably), and 80% polled said that... get this!... they would prefer to WATCH (not play... only watch) World Cup Soccer if given the choice between that, or a having a date on which they could do anything they wanted with the girl of their dreams. 80% !!!!!!
I found that to be utterly incomprehensible! I mean, I know that I'm not really a fan of any sports, but how could any guy (assuming he's heterosexual) choose watching any GAME over such a DREAM date??!
Gals... if men are really coming to that, romance is dead!
The GOOD news: If a larger percentage of women are themselves romantic, then the 20% of us guys who are romantic have a better shot at finding Miss Right.
> Abstinence is not a religious issue (at least not for me). <Nor for me.
> It's a safety and self-respect issue. Of course, I don't mean to say that everyone who has sex has no self-respect... <
I'd hope not! I certainly know that I have no such problem!
> ...but I respect myself more for being able to wait. <To each his own. If that works for you, go for it.
> Some people see sex as a neutral, just-for-fun activity; I see it as more. <
It can be... but it doesn't have to be.
>>> Perhaps you need to take a closer look at the ability of the human mind and the value of sexual deprivation to spirituality. <<<>> I don't see your point with the former. As for the latter, I cannot even imagine there being any "spiritual" value to be derived from going without sex. As I see it, there is nothing positive or beneficial about going without sex -- spiritual or otherwise. <<
> I disagree. I feel that my decision to remain abstinent has been very beneficial on an emotional level. <
Been there. Done that. Was abstinent until age 25. Wished afterward that I hadn't totally blown all the great opportunities I'd had between 15 and 25!! Given the chance to do it over again, I'd never make that mistake again, thank you!
> At the very least, I am able to avoid conflicts that occur when two people have different ideas about sex; ideas that don't surface until after the fact. As I said, for some, sex is just fun... for me it's not that simple. <>>> To draw on a completely different tradition for a second, Zen Buddhism asks monks to be celebate on their journey to enlightenment for a reason. Perhaps if our society was not quite as sexually-oriented, we'd have fewer problems with sexual deviancy. <<<
>> Remind me never to become a Zen Buddhist monk! :) <<
> Me neither. I'd hate to shave my head, and those orange robes... not my colour. LOL !! <
Mine, either!
>> As for sexual "deviancy??" Among consenting adults, no such thing exists. What they choose to do together is absolutely no one else's business . <<
> Or what they choose to do by themselves. Hee hee. <LOL!! Whichever!
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Harris Poll Reveals a VERY Pro-Choice America
The article below was posted on March 24, 1996, by Dr. Bruce Forest, to the following Usenet Newsgroups: talk.abortion, alt.religion.christian, alt.feminism, and alt.abortion.inequity. Even though other significant polls have been done since, this remains one of the most fascinating and revealing ones done on the topic of abortion. With that in mind, we now get to revisit those findings with this re-posting of Bruce's report and analysis.
(Bruce hasn't posted to the abortion groups for a long time, now, so I have no idea whether or not any of his own e-mail addresses, which he provided in his sign-off, below, are still valid.)"Harris Poll on Abortion Rights... Prolifers have Lost the War"
by Dr. Bruce ForestHere is the latest Harris data on abortion and abortion rights.
Design and Analysis by Louis Harris Conducted by Peter Harris Research Group, Inc., New York, N.Y.
The Results... (methodology below) --
The issue of a woman having the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion with the advice of her doctor is as clear-cut and decisive an issue as any in America in the mid-1990s. Up until 1985, the division on this issue was close nationwide. But, after the Webster decision, the balance shifted from a close 48% to 46% in favor to a pro-choice majority that climbed to the mid-50 percent range and then into the 60 percent range in the 1990s.
In this survey, on the basic right of a woman to choose to have an abortion, with the advice of her physician, the division nationwide is 71% to 24% in favor of choice. By the same token, an even more decisive 74% to 20% opposes a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. There is little doubt that the margins favoring abortion have been heightened by public outrage over the recent murders at abortion clinics, condemned by 94% of the public. Three in every four people favor the Justice Department sending in marshals to take action to protect abortion clinics from attack.Abortion has become a major, front and center issue with women in America. And it is an active issue in elections. In 1992, for example, the actions of the Republican Platform Committee in Houston on the choice issue triggered a defection from President Bush of white suburban women in key big northern states from which he never recovered. Over 1 in 6 voters -- 17% of the electorate -- say they are certain they would shift their vote away from a candidate who took a position opposite their own on the right to choose. That 17% comes down 71% to 29% on the side of those who are Pro-Choice. This means that 12% of the vote nationally could switch against an anti-abortion candidate, while only 5% would switch against a Pro-Choice candidate. This represents a potential swing of 7 full points in the standing in a presidential race, meaning a 50-50 contest could be turned into a 57% to 43% landslide for a Pro-Choice candidate on that issue alone.
The vast majority of these potential switchers are women, 60% of the total.
The Poll methodology ---
In all, a cross-section of 1364 adults was interviewed nationally and a cross-section of 800 adults was interviewed in California. However, in order to have special breakdowns of key groups of women, it was decided that the national sample would consist of 955 women and 409 men. In the final results, men were weighted up to 48% of the national sample. In California, the unweighted sample consisted of 443 women and 357 men, but this sample was weighted 50% men and 50% women, according to correct census estimates on gender in the California adult population. A copy of the complete question- naires used, along with annotated overall results for each question are included in the back of this report. The national questionnaire contained questions on all of the subjects in the survey. The California survey included only the questions dealing with affirmative action, abortion, and political behavior, along with full demographics. Inquiries about special breakdowns of the results can be obtained from the office of Peter Harris Research Group, Inc. in New York at (212)-427-8072.
The sampling, field work, computer tabulations, charts and tables, and report preparation were contracted with the New York research firm of Peter Harris Research Group. All women were interviewed by female interviewers and all men by male interviewers, in order not to introduce cross-gender bias. Interviewing was conducted by telephone using a computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) system operated by MKTG, Inc. of East Islip, N.Y. Louis Harris has served as an independent consultant and analyst on the study. Mr. Harris has had long experience in surveying racial and gender issues, including affirmative action. He wrote the questionnaires and the analysis of this report. He must bear the responsibility for the content, wording, and analytic portions. This study follows the practice of releasing the results of every question asked and the wording used in each question, as well as the question sequence. This is in the best practice of the field of public opinion research. Field work on the study was conducted from March 16 to April 3, 1995.
I think we have little worry about the prolifers [Anti-Choicers] having a hope in hell of restricting abortion.
-- Bruce Forest...
bforest@futuris.net
bforest@interramp.com
bforest@bliss.demon.co.uk
104165.2044@compuserve.com
droopus@aol.com= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = My Comment on December 29, 2007 The chances are good that if that same Harris Poll were taken again today, the results probably would be very much the same. Little or nothing has happened since 1995 to make Americans more hateful. In fact, if anything, we should be more egalitarian than ever, having just gone through seven long years of a highly-bigoted Bush Administration, and seeing the repulsiveness of hatefulness, first-hand.
That said, though, I wish I could share, today, the optimism that Bruce Forest held 12 years ago about the future of the right of all girls and women to access the hugely-important and -beneficial remedy of abortion. He wrote his comments before GW Bush poisoned the U.S. Supreme Court against personal liberties by appointing two young repressive, RRR-Cult-oriented justices to it... for life! Prior to those appointments, the Court had had an egalitarian majority for 80 years. But often only by a thread. Many of its most important freedom-defending decisions were 5-4 cliffhangers. From now on, we can expect only hatefulness from the High Court on social issues. Perhaps for as long as any reading this may live. It is a radically-different Court now. A Court the likes of which almost NO one alive today has ever seen at work.For example -- even though nothing could possibly be more harmless than same-sex marriage, we can count on the Court's coming down against it, first chance it gets, if it continues in its current composition. It'll be the diametric opposite of what we could have expected from the former Court. Instead of benevolently bestowing Emancipation, it'll be wreaking mindless and hateful Repression.
On the abortion front, the greatest danger is to the greatest act of Emancipation since Lincoln freed the slaves -- Roe vs. Wade. The Court could reverse that in a heartbeat at any time, and hurl America spinning and reeling back into the Dark Ages of FORCED gestation.
At this point, we have just ONE chance remaining, and even it is a tenuous one, for the damage done by Bush may already be irreversible. We must elect a Democrat to the Presidency in 2008, and hope and pray that he'll have the chance to re-set the Court, with new appointments, to its former egalitarian status. If another Republican President gets the chance to make more appointments, it'll be all over for sure.
If that happens, it'll be time for us to dust off our copies of George Orwell's 1984, and refresh ourselves on the society to come.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
The "Virginity Mystique." Were YOU ever a Pizza Virgin?
This was originally posted a decade ago, and is re-presented now in this blog, almost 100% free of changes, since almost nothing it contains has changed over the last 10 years. (Except, of course, for the fortunate aspect that society has significantly outgrown the described syndrome, over those years) --
Original posting: Wed, Dec. 31, 1997, to these Usenet groups: alt.teens.16-18, alt.teens.sexuality, and alt.abortion, as "The Virginity Mystique."
Has anyone ever given serious consideration as to why a significant portion of an otherwise fairly-enlightened society persists so much in regarding virginity to be something special?Before I ever ate my first slice of pizza, I was a "pizza virgin." Before I ever bowled, I was a "virgin" in that respect. Likewise for sex.
But every time I left one type of virginity behind, the effect invariably was that my life had been enhanced, and my horizons had been expanded.
Putting virginity on a pedestal is precisely the same as ascribing value to ignorance. "Losing" one's virginity is to gain a new dimension in one's life, whether it be with pizza, sex, bowling, or anything else.
The only significance of whether one is a virgin or not with respect to sex is a totally artificial, arbitrary, and meaningless one. The only change that scrapping sexual virginity produces is to enhance one's life experiences -- unless you've been brainwashed into some primitive and pointless belief system. (Which you can just as easily scrap.)
In short, "virginity" is no big deal. It is not something that one "loses." It is something that one should willingly seek to get rid of, just as we so willingly get rid of other forms of virginity with first experiences of any sort. Pizza, bowling, or whatever.
Therefore, if you regard sexual virginity to have any special significance, all I can say to you is this:
Fer Pete's sake, get a life! And then enjoy it !!
(Please feel free to copy and distribute this to any and all who are hung up on that silly syndrome.)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
December 22, 2007 Update:When this article originally ran, some people made the mistake of thinking that I openly advocated that virgins simply scrap virginity for the sake of getting that done. Looking it over again now, I can see how they got that impression. So now I'll clarify that.
What I meant then, and still mean now, is THIS:
Retaining one's sexual virginity for virginity's sake -- as though there were supposedly some "special" quality, or some sort of "purity" associated with it, is abjectly stupid. That said, however, there are some good and valid reasons for doing so. And the most valid of those is the fact that abstinence still is the greatest defense against catching or transmitting STDs. If such a reason as that is given for retaining virginity, that's good thinking. But... if a person does so because they've been conned into thinking that there's some sort of "purity" associated with virginity -- then that is about as dumb a reason as anyone could fall for. A person's life is exponentially more fascinating after he or she has become sexually-active. It's good to realize this early on, rather than to discover it years later, and then find yourself reflecting on all the wonderful opportunities that had been irretreivably blown and lost forever -- that could never be recaptured!
Thursday, December 20, 2007
How IGNORANT are the Lemmings of the RRR Cult?
Here's an Excellent Example!
In one of the Internet's many well-known public forums (fora) today, December 20, 2007, I had pointed out that Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee carries heavy political baggage, in that he is both a hateful bigot of the "Religious" Radical Right (the RRR Cult) who seeks to destroy the personal liberties of tens of millions of Americans for NO good reason... but also very much deserves his nickname of "Tax-hike Mike" -- having raised taxes three times more in his 10 years in office as Governor of Arkansas than had been done in the previous 12 years.
It's hard to imagine anyone's packing more bigotry and sheer ignorance into one short paragraph than a person calling himself "Loyal" (his alias) did in his response to my pointing out those facts. He wrote:"Wow! Thanks for giving people still more reasons to vote for Huckabee. I am very pleased that he is not only against the senseless slaughter of people because they are too young to defend themselves within their mother's womb, but he is against giving homosexuals special preferences for their sinful lifestyle. It is about time someone stood up to homosexuals and child killers."
To see just HOW loony all his mindless hate-tripe truly is, just click here!
Sunday, December 16, 2007
U.S. Television's ASS-inine Censorship Again Makes Puritanical USA the World's Laughingstock.
Right off the bat, in the beginning minutes of tonight's season finale of "Survivor - China," one of the female contestants' posterior was fuzzed-over for apparently coming too close to treating the audience of a view of "too much" cheek. How ASSinine is that?!
We have both the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) and most of our witless and hyperconservative loons in Congress to blame for that -- since the FCC can heavily fine "offending" networks and stations for airing verbal and visual instances of things that are against their idiotic and censorious rules... and since Congress not long ago (following Janet Jackson's fun Super Bowl halftime reveal) dramatically increased the penalties that the FCC would have to impose.
Most of the developed/civilized world gets to see most of the more popular programs that air on U.S. television... especially the game and reality shows. So once again, the world has gotten to see just how moronic American institutions often are.
The supreme irony of all this is this: on an individual, case-by-case basis, Americans are some of the randyest and most sexually-active people on the face of the earth! With the exception of a relative handful of the RRR cult's lemmings... since most of them are closeted sex-o-philes, themselves, and pretend otherwise for acceptance by their peers. (Since they have no idea which of them are the same way, and which of them are actually the stick-in-the-mud prudes that they seem to be.) As for Congress -- same thing. Take Senator Larry "I am not gay" Craig (R-ID), for example. Whose congressional actions were among the most hateful and homophobic toward the gay community! How many of those lawmakers really wanted to give heavier enforcement to TV censorship -- and how many of them did so just for appearance's sake, to give their hypocritical constituents and their fellow hypocrites in Congress what they believed those folks and peers expected and wanted?Most sensible people deplore the moronic censorship to which we are subjected by network TV (and even by most of the non-premium cable channels, even though the FCC's enforcement doesn't even apply to them -- go figure!)... and all-too-often hypocritically pretend otherwise. For the sake of the hundreds of millions of people who truly deplore this as much as I do -- I fervently hope that we all get to live long enough to see America OUTGROW this mindless hypocrisy and lunacy. And get to enjoy TV the way the far-more honest and sensible Europeans usually do.
Steroids in Sports? Big harry deel!!
As in, big whoop! Who gives a flying rat's patoot? I certainly don't.
Just for the record, I don't use any illegal substances (or even questionable ones, as steroids might be considered to be, outside of the sports world). So I have no axe to grind in writing this short opinion piece. The only time I made an exception to that was around 1972 (when pretty much everyone of college age was doing it) when I tried smoking a little pot. Once! And there was a very good reason for my not doing it a second time. It was in the evening, and as I drove home that night on a highway having a 45-mph speed limit, I knew I was driving that speed only because the speedometer said so. But my perception was that I was travelling only at about 25 mph or so. By what I regard common sense, I have opposed the legalization of pot for just that reason, and no other, ever since. If that experience affected my perception as it did, it probably would have the same effect on most other people, since I have a very normal physiology. What would happen if drivers didn't travel according to the speedometer, as I did, that night, but instead were to drive according to their perceptions? What if they drove at a perceived 65 mph? Their actual speed might well be more than 100 mph! And that could endanger them, and everyone else around them! So -- legalize pot? No. For that reason only. That reason is quite sufficient! It's not a freedom of choice issue, with pot. It's a public safety issue.Steroids, though... that's a totally different breed of cat! There are many ways steroids can be used legally, and outside of the sports world, that's usually the case.
If an athlete can beef up by frequent use of such body-building techniques as weight-lifting and the exercise gyms, then what the blue blazes difference does it make if he or she adds steroids to his repertoire? If a baseball player, for example, didn't work out, he'd probably flunk out. So I think it's a safe bet that all successful athletes probably work out. And if the most successful of them also happened to use steroids, then fine. Let the less successful ones either follow suit, or keep on being mediocre. Their choice. Steroids are legal pharmaceuticals, and the imposition of artificial and pointless rules and strictures on athletes by those who have the capability to make such impositions is unfair and laughable. Whether it be in the world of professional sports, or in the Olympics. We just recently saw the case of an Olympic runner stripped of her medals -- and her relay team equally cheated out of their medals, over this idiotic extremism. That was hateful, cruel, stupid, and uncalled-for!
The newly-released Mitchell Report, which "exposes" more than 80 professional baseball players for steroid use, is just that mindless and ludicrous.
Do the fans care, one way or the other? THIS fan certainly doesn't! And any fans that do give a hoot about it, or whine about it, need to lighten up. It's NO big deal! And Mitchell can go fly a kite!
Sunday, December 2, 2007
A Surreal Alternate Reality...
If the Democrats LOSE in 2008.
The Return of the Underground Railroad!
If the Democrats don't re-take the White House in 2008, America could be in for a nightmare scenario not seen since 1865.
FREE states and SLAVE states. And an Underground Railroad system to assist the victims.
Doesn't that seem surreal and impossible? Unfortunately, it is not. Mark my words well -- the above scenario could become a grim and horrific reality as soon as mid-2009, and probably not much later than 2012, at best, if the Republicans were to retain their grip on the White House. (Which probably could only happen with the combination of crooked and rigged electronic voting machines, and apathetic sheeple who go along with it... as happened in Ohio, in 2004. That's fully documented in The Conyers Report.)
Here's how it would play out, almost surely, in a continued Republican administration.
ALL of the Republicans are Anti-Choice. You think Giuliani is an exception? Think again! He's said that he's perfectly willing to let the states decide when it comes to abortion rights. And he has promised that he will appoint ONLY "conservatives" to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Well -- it already may be too late. Thanks to G.W. Bush's having appointed two anti-egalitarian justices to it, that court may now already have an anti-personal-liberties majority for the first time in 80 years. You think those won't be "activist" judges? Just watch! Those so-called "constructionists" will interpret and skew the Constitution against vital rights just as surely as the fair-minded and compassionate majority of judges before them scoured the Constitution with an eye to defending our liberties. The only difference between the "activist" judges that the RRR Cult screeches and yowls about, and the the "constructionist" judges that are just one step lower than the angels in their eyes, is what they will do FOR us -- the people -- or TO us. One thing about appellate court judges is this -- they are ALL activists, and they ALL create Judicial Law.
Judicial Law, which stems from such courts' right to apply judicial review to legislation, is a key part of the Constitution's checks-and-balances system, and was reaffirmed over 200 years ago (in 1804, barely after America became a nation) in the landmark Marbury vs. Madison Decision. Thus, it is well-established law!That function is what the RRR Cult's leaders snidely call "legislating from the bench." And they have their millions of lemmings -- who are mostly too doltish to understand the reality -- parroting that dishonest catch-phrase.
"Legislating from the bench" (legitimately, as described above) is FINE when it stands up for our rights and defends our personal liberties. In other words, it's fine when the majority of the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are compassionate and fair-minded. Such majorities have been in place for longer than just about anyone alive today can remember. We have never known a Court having an ANTI-personal-liberties majority. But we probably have one now!
The best evidence that this disaster has already occurred is the Court's upholding the mindless law against so-called "partial-birth abortion." First off -- there's no such thing! The ID&E procedure that is so dishonestly described that way by the RRR's lying leaders is "Intact Dilation and Extraction." And it is a mid-SECOND-trimester procedure, almost always! It is done four or more months before birth normally would occur. And by that time in the pregnancy, the abortion usually isn't even elective. Women are 'WAY smarter than to wait 4-1/2 months to have an elective abortion! Thus, this newly-outlawed procedure is generally done as a medical necessity -- and is often the safest procedure to employ for her when the woman is that far along.
Who's dumber? The RRR Cultists... or the current majority of justices in the U.S. Supreme Court? Because the RRR's crafty leaders surely know these facts -- and those justices darned well should know them! One thing's for sure -- neither group of those educated people give a flying rat's patoot for teenage girls and women! This was a great example of where "legislating from the bench" went terribly WRONG. As it usually WILL. In the wrong hands!
Back to other cases of supposed "legislating from the bench." Here's what Judicial Review accomplished over the last 50+ years prior to the present makeup of the Court, when the majority was still in the right hands:
Brown vs. Board of Education -- 1954 -- Spelled the ultimate demise of segregation.
Loving vs. Virginia -- 1967 -- Struck down all the hateful laws against interracial marriage.
Roe vs. Wade -- 1973 -- Emancipated girls and women from being forced to gestate UNwanted pregnancies to term. The greatest mass emancipation of Americans ever, and the first since Lincoln freed the slaves in 1865.
Lawrence vs. Texas -- 2003 -- Kicked the government OUT of the bedrooms of the American people.
There are many more, but those are some KEY ones. And with today's composition of the Court, every single one of those probably would have gone the wrong way!
Okay. WHY do we need a Democrat to win the White House in 2008? Just this -- whoever is president, as of the 2009 inauguration, he or she will almost surely get to appoint at least one, and possibly two, Supreme Court justices. A Republican would irrevocably destroy the Court for as long as any of us alive today are likely to live, and this can lead America inexorably and irrevocably down the road to ultimate tyranny. But a Democratic President would have a chance to possibly restore the Court to its former egalitarian majority.
We just have this ONE shot at it! After that, between Diebold, Republican dishonesty, and a Supreme Court corrupted against personal liberties, we almost surely will never have another chance!
Finally, let's go back to the scenario at the start of this article, to see just what almost surely WILL transpire if Bush is replaced by another Republican.
The Supreme Court, in its present composition, is almost certain to repeal the earlier Roe vs. Wade decision, and then the states would again each be able to regulate or deny abortion. We already know that many state Republican-majority legislatures are poised to make it flat-out illegal. And many states still have their former anti-abortion laws still on the books, ready and waiting for the 1973 Court's mandate against them to be lifted.
At the moment that the Supreme Court destroys Roe vs. Wade, all of that will come into play. The USA will be comprised of a hodgepodge of FREE states and SLAVE states, all over again. In the latter, girls and women having UNwanted pregnancies will either be enslaved to unwanted full gestation, and the horrific economic and social defvastation that would wreak upon their furure plans and opportunities. Or they'd have to make their way to FREE states to obtain their abortions.
For teens and the economically-deprived women, this would be a huge burden. Insurmountable for most.
But for the fortunate thousands who could obtain round-trip passage, a newly-created (after the fall of Roe vs. Wade) and fully-legal Underground Railway would be the only recourse. It almost surely would be privately-run, and would function on the contributions of fair-minded and compassionate Pro-Choice people.
Would emancipation from that nightmare scenario ever come about again? EVER? Perhaps not!
That's why we MUST elect a Democrat to the Presidency in 2008!
Ron Paul's seemingly-libertarian stance is interesting to some -- on the surface. But he has a Terrible FLAW!
Ron Paul (one of the lower-tier Republican candidates for President) would like for abortion rights to be back in the hands of the individual states. If that disaster were to befall America, the USA would be a hodgepodge of *free* states and *slave* states. In order to enable economically-deprived women who desired abortions to get them, a new (and legal) charitable "Underground Railroad" system would HAVE to be created to ferry them from the slave states to the free ones, and back. And many thousands of them would still fall through the cracks.
Thus, Ron Paul is a BIGOT. And we've had more than enough of that in the White House already, with G.W. Bush!
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Bush Continues to be RRR Cult's TOADY...
Appoints Another Anti-Choice LOSER.
From NARAL -- October 17, 2007
Bush Puts Another Anti-Birth-Control Activist in Charge of Family Planning
Washington, D.C. –Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, called reports that President Bush has named Susan Orr, a right-wing activist with ties to anti-birth-control groups, as acting director of the federal office that oversees the nation's family-planning programs yet another example of Bush putting political ideology before women's health.
Orr's temporary appointment comes months after another anti-contraception leader, Eric Keroack, resigned as director of the Office of Population Affairs at the Department of Health and Human Services amid allegations of fraud.
"This president continues to go off the deep end in attacking basic birth control," Keenan said. "Americans are tired of this administration using government resources to reward individuals who are hostile to family planning and improving women's health. Even though Ms. Orr's appointment is not permanent at this time, it represents another missed opportunity by this president to put women's health before pleasing his far-right political base."
In addition to this temporary appointment, Orr continues to serve as associate commissioner in the Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Administration for Children and Families, at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Prior to joining the Bush administration, she was senior director for marriage and family care at the Family Research Council—a group notorious for its attacks on contraception.
While at the Family Research Council, Orr made this comment after Bush proposed cancelling federal employees’ contraceptive coverage: "We're quite pleased because fertility is not a disease. It's not a medical necessity that you have it" (Washington Post, 4/12). [As reported by American Political Network, American Health Line, Volume 6 No. 9, April 12, 2001]
Contact: Ted Miller (202) 973-3032
Sunday, November 25, 2007
"It's not the votes that count. It's who counts the votes."
--Soviet Dictator, Joseph Stalin
As background for this article, I present you with this review of "The Conyers Report," written for Amazon.com by Edwin C. Pauzer, of New York City. (With thanks to Amazon. Clicking on the link will take you to this review, and provide you with access to purchasing the book. Emphasis within the review, below, is mine. --Ed.):
In his book "Armed Madhouse..." author Greg Palast quotes Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin. "It's not the votes that count. It's who counts the votes." After you read the dry but factual 116 pages of this book, you will come to the inescapable conclusion that the election was stolen from presidential candidate John Kerry and given to Mr. Bush. The book is divided into facts (what happened) and analysis (the motive and how it could have happened). It starts with Ohio's secretary of state, a republican, Kenneth Blackwell who promised to "fill in the blanks" regarding voting anomalies but has kept silent in the finest tradition of "political omerta." He has refused to initiate any investigations, and has tried his best to have the ballots destroyed. Here's some of what Conyers uncovers: Republican challengers were at every precinct causing massive voting delays. This is called caging, and it is illegal. Republican challengers targeted 97% of new voters in black areas. They only challenged 14% of new voters in white areas. There were voting machine lockdowns preventing observation of ballot counts. This too is illegal. There were flipped votes. Voters reported that they had voted for Kerry and watched their vote register for George Bush. These "glitches" were called "calibration problems." The number of votes vs. voters. In many places the number of voter turn-out exceeded 100%. (?) In one case nearly 19,000 votes were added after all precincts reported. There were repairs being made by the electronic voting machine company while the ballots were being recounted. This too is illegal. In Ohio. The exit polls which asked the people how they voted, showed that Kerry had won. Men and women voters gave a majority to Kerry. These polls are usually very accurate. So, how did exit polls that put Kerry ahead 52% to 48% turn around after the ballots were counted? After reading this book, you can only arrive at one conclusion: There's something rotten in the state of Ohio. Update: Blackwell ran for governor in Ohio this past November and was defeated. Those ballots he could not manage to hide.
If you can possibly read the above review, and the book itself, and not realize that nothing less than American democracy is at stake, then you are most assuredly part of the problem. And if you do recognize this threat, but do nothing to help counter it -- BEFORE the General Election in November, 2008 -- then you are very assuredly no part of a very desperately-needed solution!
This article could turn long and tedious, if I filled it with more documentation. And then fewer people would read and act upon it, which would defeat its purpose. So I suggest that you please do this:Do a Google search of these words, exactly as presented, and you'll have an abundance of information: "diebold" "voting" "fraud".
You'll have all the proof that you need! (And, should you run across anyone who poo-poos this, or claims it's "conspiracy theory," ask yourself these questions: "With which party does he affiliate himself?" And, "WHY is he so anxious to keep you from learning the facts?")
The SOLUTION It seems almost too easy, but if enough of us do it, it cannot help but work!
Contact both of your U.S. Senators, and your Representative in Congress, and tell them that this must be done no later than during the springtime of 2008, so as to allow all of the relevant states enough time to prepare and adjust for it:
All states using electronic voting devices must ensure that those machines generate a paper vote simultaneously with the electronic one, and that the voter must be able to see and verify the printed vote before leaving the polling place.
All electronically talllied votes must be regarded as preliminary -- just to give the country an idea of how things seem to be developing, on Election Night. And then ALL of the paper ballots must be tallied under strict supervision from representatives of all parties on the ballot. ONLY after ALL of those paper ballots have been properly and honestly tallied, can victories be declared. And the tallied PAPER ballots, and their tally, are the only OFFICIAL results. No matter how lopsided the election may appear to be.
(Please enclose a copy of the above book review, and ask that the legislation be written to explicity and enforcably PROHIBIT all of the abuses that are cited within it.)
If this Congress -- which currently has a Democratic majority in both houses, and therefore may be our very last hope for heading off permanent disaster, passes this legislation... but then President Bush were to veto it -- that should set off a firestorm from the electorate! Since the only possible reason to do that would be to wreck the democratic process!
Finally -- Use the Internet to promote the above measure. Post to blogs. Use text messaging. Phone in relentlessly to radio talk shows.
If democracy in the USA is to survive into 2009 -- it is up to us -- WE, the PEOPLE -- to get the job done! Please don't make the mistake of thinking this can be put off. Because it almost certainly is now or never! Do or die!
The Internet address of this article (URL) is spelled out below. Please e-mail it as far and wide as you possibly can! Thanks -- and good luck to us all!
http://apifar.blogspot.com/2007/11/its-not-votes-that-count-its-who-counts_25.html
Someone asked how the Presidential candidates stand on Same-Sex Marriage.
This was my response --
Fortunately for America (since our next President will probably be a Democrat, barring vote-count fraud), none of the Democratic candidates are bigots with respect to same-sex marriage SSM). They mostly are amenable to legalization of "civil unions," rather than actually calling it marriage. (Pandering, of course, to voters who get whiney about using the word, marriage... as ignorant as such voters are.) But otherwise having all of the benefits of marriage.
Once the unconstitutional blocks to SSM (since nothing in the Constitution restricts the gender makeup of married couples) have fallen, and SSM is fully legal nationwide, I think that the semantic "civil union" challenge to that terminology will vanish. Because it almost certainly suddenly will dawn on people that all opposite-sex marriages that are now being performed in the USA by JPs, Mayors, Ship Captains, Vegas-style Wedding Chapels, etc., are not religious ceremonies. (So much for "sanctity" of marriage, since if any marriages are to be considered sacred at all, it would only be the religiously-performed ones.) And therefore all of those are civil unions. And with there being no difference in benefits accruing from "marriage" vis-a-vis "civil unions," that will likely spell the the end of this silly battle over semantics waged by religious extremists. All couples legally joined, either by civil or religious ceremonies, will be married, plain and simple. Whether opposite-sex or same-sex.
As the race for the Presidency heats up -- no matter what the candidates may say -- don't trust any Republican to be an egalitarian, when push comes to shove, after taking office, if America should be so unfortunate as for one of them to be elected. (Or if the Republicans should manage to steal yet another election, with help from the Diebold electronic voting machines.) Not even Giuliani. He talks like an egalitarian now, but don't expect him to walk the walk. I don't think he'll go to the mat for the assurance of equal rights for all. And we must strive to the utmost to elect the Democratic nominee, so that this won't have to be put to the test.
Finally, you probably noticed the links, above, having to do with vote fraud via electronic machines. If anyone reading this thinks that the Republican Party, heavily steeped in dishonesty since and including Watergate, wouldn't pull out all possible stops to steal the 2008 election, please contact me about a nice bridge in New York that I can sell you.
For more on this most insideous threat to democracy, Google: "diebold" "voting" "corrupt". And -- get yourself a copy of "The Conyers Report" from Amazon.com, or elsewhere.
S.J. Haye (his real name) of Ridgecrest, California made a chilling prediction for the 2008 election -- back on October 20, 2005, in writing a review of "The Conyers Report" for Amazon.com. Reading it, it's hard to believe that more than two years have passed since he wrote it... since nothing has changed to correct this situation. Indeed, the party in power -- the Republicans -- have had two more years since then to fine-tune the mechanisms for destroying democracy in their favor. Here is what this reviewer wrote:
Rep. John Conyers, (D - Michigan, the ranking minority chair of the House Judiciary Committee, led eleven Democratic Congressman (Republicans boycotted this investigation) and their staffers into the swamp that was the 2004 Presidential election in Ohio. Conyers had come to answer an essential question -- What Went Wrong in Ohio? The investigation was conducted despite the difficulties caused by Bush (whose selection in 2000 led to an apology from Justice John Paul Stevens for the behavior of the 5-4 majority of the Court in the matter of Bush vs. Gore) and of the Republican majority in Congress. In the introduction, Gore Videl says that when asked who would win in `04, he said that Bush would lose again, but he was confident that in the four years between 2000 and 2004, creative propaganda and the fixing of elections might very well be perfected so as to ensure an official victory for Bush. As this report shows in great detail with very thorough documentation of sources, Ohio was carefully set up to deliver an apparent victory for Bush even though Kerry appears to be not only the popular winner but the Electoral College winner. This report states categorically, "With regards to our factual findings, in brief, we find that there were massive and unprecedented voter irregularities and anomalies in Ohio." These were caused by officials, chiefly Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell who was co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio, and included deliberate misallocation of voting machines so that thousands or even hundreds of thousands of predominately minority and Democratic voters had to wait in long lines, or couldn't even vote, "cheat sheets" supplied to numerous counties to guide those counting the ballots so that Bush would have the proper number of votes to beat Kerry, denial of the right to observe the counting of ballots by impartial observers, illegally removing voters from the voting rolls, and other acts designed to ensure a Bush "win". The outlook for 2008? To date, nothing has been done, either by Congress or the States, to clean up this mess. After all, those benefiting by the corruption are in charge. So, as things stand, expect a Republican "win" in 2008, regardless of who happens to be running. [Emphasis is mine, above. -- ed.]
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Stem Cell Research -- Good News on TWO Fronts!
On November 20, 2007, it was announced that a major breakthrough had occurred almost simultaneously on two continents, with respect to stem-cell research. It looks as though, in years to come, thousands of labs will have the capability to reprogram skin cells to function in much the same way as embryonic stem cells.
Two research groups have found different genetic recipes to give ordinary skin cells the power to turn into virtually any kind of human tissue, just as embryonic stem cells do.
"If the recipes live up to their promise, they could someday end the [pseudo-]ethical debate over embryonic stem cell research — and usher in an era when a person's own cells could be manipulated to mend a broken spinal cord, heal a damaged heart or regenerate other failing tissues.
"But in their current state, the recipes are too risky for disease treatment, and even the scientists behind the latest studies cautioned that therapies are still years away. In announcing their discoveries, they emphasized that much more research still needs to be done on stem cells that have been derived from human embryos."
"'It's not the time to say human embryonic stem cell research is dead,' James Thomson, a biologist at the Univerity of Wisconsin at Madison, who is behind a study appearing in the journal Science, told msnbc.com.
"Kyoto University's Shinya Yamanaka, the principal author of a study published by the journal Cell, echoed that view, saying it would be "premature" to conclude that the cells created in his lab could replace embryonic stem cells.
"Like embryonic stem cells, these reprogrammed cells become 'pluripotent' — that is, they're capable of turning themselves into virtually any tissue type in the human body, including neurons and heart tissue. They also exhibit many of the other biochemical properties of embryonic stem cells, although they're not genetically identical to stem cells. [Emphasis mine, wherever colored type, italics, or boldfacing appear, within quoted statements in this article. No verbiage was changed in those.]"
"That bright future depends on a series of big ifs.
"First of all, the function of the reprogrammed cells will have to be compared closely with the function of actual embryonic stem cells. "I'd be surprised if these cells do all the same tricks as stem cells derived from embryos," Advanced Cell Technology's chief scientific officer, Robert Lanza told msnbc.com.
"Also, in both experiments, the four-gene recipe was added to the skin cells using a virus as the delivery package. "The FDA [Food and Drug Administration] would never allow us to use these virus-modified cells in patients," Lanza said."
A back door to human cloning? Yamanaka also said the reprogramming technique could allow for the creation of egg cells as well as sperm cells from the same person, male or female.This Breakthrough is NOT a Substitute for ongoing Ebryonic Stem-Cell Research 
On one network newscast, today, it was noted that this breakthrough would take decades to refine and make available to humans, and that it was something our kids might see happen in their lifetimes, rather than us.
Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa
has pushed for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research and said he will continue to do so.
"Our top researchers recognize that this new development does not mean that we should discontinue studying embryonic stem cells," he said in a written statement. "Scientists may yet find that embryonic stem cells are more powerful. We need to continue to pursue all alternatives as we search for treatments for diabetes, Parkinson's and spinal cord injuries."
"He added that Tuesday's announcement 'reiterates the need for federal support for medical research and again points out the president's misplaced priorities in vetoing the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill which included a substantial increase for the National Institutes of Health.'"Senator Harkin has been an important advocate of valuable medical progress, very consistently. Not just in the case of embryonic stem-cell research, but also with respect to human cloning, which could become a huge benefit to humanity in the not-too-distant future, once all the whinings of its generally-ignorant opponents have been summarily rejected by the developed world's societies.
On March 12, 1997, Harkin very enthusiatically endorsed all forms of medical technologies, including human cloning, when he said this after the successful cloning of Dolly, the sheep:
"This has enormous potential for good. There should be no limits on human knowledge, none whatever. To those like President Clinton who say we can't play God, I say OK, fine, you can take your side alongside Pope Paul V who in 1616 tried to stop Galileo, they accused Galileo of trying to play God too. [ ... ] I don't think cloning is demeaning to human nature. To attempt to limit human knowledge is demeaning. It's not legitimate to try to stop cloning. What nonsense, what utter, utter nonsense to think we can hold up our hand and just say 'stop.' Cloning will continue, the human mind will continue to inquire into it. Human cloning will take place and it will take place in my lifetime, and I don't fear it at all. I want to be on the side of the Galileos and those who say the human mind has no limits, rather than trying to stop something that's going to happen anyway."
Back to MSNBC's story, "A lead author of one of the landmark studies, James Thomson of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, urged that reprogrammed cells not wholly supplant embryonic stem cells in research. 'I don't like the idea of pulling the plug,' he told reporters in a conference call.
"He added that Tuesday's advances in reprogramming cells would not have been possible without the advancements in embryonic stem cell research over the past decade.
"Thomson and his colleagues at the University of Wisconsin were the first researchers to isolate human embryonic stem cells, in 1998."
Interestingly, another cause for concern was raised in both the NBC Nightly News and on NBC's Today Show -- the possibility that the stem cells derived from this breakthrough may be flawed, in that they may have the potential to become cancerous.
My Own Conclusion Senator Tom Harkin (whom, I am proud and happy to say, is my senator, as an Iowan) said it all in the comments I highlighted above. In America, today's equivalent of the sort of mindless opposition that Galileo faced, is the loathsome and ignorant RRR Cult -- the "Religious" Radical Right.
Early in this article, where it said "ethical debate," I inserted "[pseudo-]" before "ethical" because the opposition to embryonic stem cell research has about as little to do with an actual debate as fighting a duel with cream puffs at 60 years would if the opponent had a howitzer. There is nothing ethical about the RRR, which is comprised almost entirely of people having the sort of mentality and mindsets that we saw in Southern segregationists, 50 years ago. To most sensible and intelligent people, they are a joke. But UNTIL their loathsome and hateful agendas against progress, and individual liberties/human rights are relegated to the same permanent extinction that befell those of the segregationists, they are America's own home-grown version of the Taliban. And for as long as that UN-Christian cult continues to function, and have any influence in our society, we must continue to regard it the USA's greatest internal threat, and deal with it accordingly. Which means vigorously opposing it and properly & honestly de-legitimizing it, 24/7, 365-1/4 days a year. Because ---
The RRR Cult : U.S. Society :: 5% Arsenic solution : glass of drinking water. Its ludicrous and antisocial agendas are toxic to American society, and the rights of tens of millions of people. And we cannot accept those, any more than we could accept equally mindless and sociopathic racial discrimination and segregation.
And fortunately for medical science, embryonic stem cell research will continue to be pursued, unabated, alongside other avenues of research involving stem cells. No matter how much the doltish RRR Cult whines about it! And that is why I entitled this article, "...Good News on TWO Fronts."
Monday, November 19, 2007
TOUGH LUCK, President Bush! We’re Very Happily Blowing the Lid Right OFF of Your Tight-lipped Secrecy!
Plain and simple, Bush clearly was afraid to acknowledge that Iran’s President Ahmadinejad LIED! And thus possibly provoke him! Read on! ---
Over these last seven very dismal years, most Americans have gotten wise to "President" Bush’s doltish stubbornness and terribly grievous mistakes. Such as his lying to the whole world about nonexistent WMD, his subsequent invasion of the sovereign nation of Iraq and slaughter of, to date, more than 100,000 of its innocent citizens – making him the worst mass-murderer the world has seen since Pol Pot, and probably staining the world’s perception of America forevermore. And his idiotic and thoughtless veto of the expansion of embryonic stem-cell research. And on and on, ad nauseum.
And then he refused to say anything about the incursion by Israel (with U.S. assistance and collusion) into Syria on September 6, 2007. At a press conference later, I’ve never heard Bush utter so many instances of "No comment" in so short a time. And now, it’s late November, and he still won’t say a word about it.
Well – tough, Bush. We have the FACTS now, and we are more than happy to tell everyone what happened, despite your moronic secrecy.
Readers – here’s the story! From The Philadelphia Trumpet, based in Edmond, Oklahoma. Below, we quote salient excerpts from the article, entitled "Close to Armageddon," in its November-December 2007 issue.Most journalists agree that Israeli F-151 jets made a surgical strike on a military installation inside Syria. The date was September 6.
The Syrians are not talking because they have been humiliated. Other top government officials who know about the attack are not talking either. In fact, they have never been so abnormally secretive about anything. Israel has had almost total censorship, which is nearly unheard of. Why are they so secretive?
The Spectator quoted "a very senior British ministerial source" as saying this: "If people had known that day how close we came to World War III that day, there’s have been mass panic." ... [Prime Minister Gordon] Brown really would have been dealing with the bloody book of Revelation and Armageddon" (October 3). ...
This seems to be about the worst description he could give us.
Another statement from the Spectator: "According to American sources, Israeli intelligence tracked a North Korean vessel carrying a cargo of nuclear material labeled "cement" as it travelled halfway around the world. On September 3, the ship docked at the Syrian port of Tartus, and the Israelis continued following the cargo as it was transported to the small town of Dayr az Zawr ... in northeastern Syria. ...
"Three days after the North Korean consignment arrived, the final phase of Operation Orchard was launched. With prior approval from Washington, Israeli F-151 jets were scrambled and, minutes later, the installation and its newly-arrived contents were destroyed.
"So secret were the operational details of the mission that even the pilots who were assigned to provide air cover for the strike had not been briefed on it until they were airborne." (ibid.)
The world knows that Israel has nuclear bombs and submarines with nuclear cruise missiles.
Syria already has one of the world’s deadliest stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. It wanted the nuclear material to complete its weapons of mass destruction program. ... Syria is second only to Iran in state-sponsored terrorism. It isn’t hard to imagine Damascus giving nuclear devices to terrorists.
SIDE NOTE: One of the Bible’s most intriguing and as-yet-unfulfilled prophecies is found in Isaiah 17:1 (NIV) – An oracle concerning Damascus: "See, Damascus will no longer be a city but will become a heap of ruins." And all of the Bible’s prophecies whose time have already come, came to pass flawlessly!
One of the Trumpet’s contacts in Israel said he wondered why Israel was calling up its national guard before the September 6 attack. After he learned some sketchy details of what happened, he knew why. Israel was preparing for war – possibly a war involving WMDs. And we can’t rule out the use of nuclear weapons, even from the Arab side.
There seems to be clear evidence that the Russians had some nuclear weapons stolen. Who got them? Syria? Iran? Many journalists think it was Iran.
This problem goes much deeper than Syria and Israel. Syria is a surrogate of Iran. The king of the Muslim world is Iran.
Charles Krauthammer wrote this in his September 21 Washington Post column: "Iran’s assets in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq are poised and ready. [President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad’s message is this: If anyone dares attack our nuclear facilities, we will fully activate our proxies, unleashing unrestrained destruction on Israel, moderate Arabs, Iraq and U.S. interests – in addition to the usual, such as mining the Strait of Hormuz and causing an acute oil crisis and worldwide recession. ...
"The new president of France has declared a nuclear Iran ‘unacceptable.’ The French foreign minister warned that ‘it is necessary to prepare for the worst’ – and the worst, it’s war, sir."
France is a member of the European Union. You can see that the EU is being drawn into the Middle East vortex.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that Israel must be "wiped from the map." That statement indicates that he plans to use nuclear weapons to achieve that goal.
President George W. Bush said on October 18: "I’ve told people that, if you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing [the Iranians] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." ...
The Middle East is rapidly becoming more volatile, and everybody knows it. We are frighteningly close to World War III.
Okay. From what we see above, the reason Bush wouldn’t comment on the strike on Syria’s nuclear facility almost surely stems from the fact that Syria IS a surrogate of Iran, and thus, an attack on Syria’s nuclear facilities would perfectly serve to trigger Ahmadinejad’s promised HUGE retaliation, as presented in red, above.
Ahmadinejad LIED!! The retaliation he promised was not carried out – even though we assisted Israel to attack a nuclear facility in one of his surrogate nations. And to this day, Bush obviously is afraid to make that known, and splash some very well-deserved OMELET on Ahmadinejad’s face.
The truth is out, GW Bush. Your "no comments" have come to naught – and I am very happy to have joined The Philadelphia Trumpet and its sources in spectacularly blowing the lid off of your cover-up!
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Be an Active Egalitarian! Keep up to date on the Issues: Same-Sex Marriage
in Yahoo -- Same Sex Unions.Is there anything in the world that is more harmless than same-sex marriage? After all, it doesn't even remotely threaten any thing or any one. No matter how much the anti-gay-rights bigots whiningly LIE otherwise. People are born with their sexual orientations, so straights will just keep right on marrying their opposite-sex partners, no matter how many gays happen to marry their same-sex ones.
Valuable information for both Gays and their millions of Straight Allies can be found in this very active group
Egalitarians, unlike their doltish and bigotry-brainwashed RRR Cult counterparts, are fully aware that same-sex marriage is totally harmless, could have no adverse effect on any opposite-sex couples’ marriages, and that all of the RRR-instigated (and so-called) “Defense of Marriage” legislation is nothing but an immensely-viscious, lying, and hateful sham. The pseudo-Religious Radical Right is America’s very own version of the Taliban, and until its loathsome agendas have all been relegated to extinction (where they will join their first cousin in mindless bigotry, segregation), it will continue to pose a grave threat to the personal liberties and individual freedoms of hundreds of millions of Americans.
It’s a discussion forum that advocates marriage equality for couples of same sex.
A reminder of just how dangerous they are can be seen in the way that they succeeded in reversing the polarity of the U.S. Supreme Court. For longer than any American has been alive, that Court was the greatest defender and advocate of liberty on the face of the earth. But now, thanks to the RRR’s toady, President GW Bush, it has been horribly poisoned for decades to come... against many very important personal liberties. Bush is a real piece of work! He invaded a sovereign nation under lying false pretenses, thus proving to the world that America, tragically, is no longer a benign and friendly good neighbor that can be trusted. Which earned us the enmity of billions of people, worldwide. And he then proceeded to become the worst mass-murderer the world has seen since Pol Pot. Bush has made Iraq – which had nothing to do with 9/11 – his own personal Killing Fields. At least 100,000 innocent Iraqis have been slaughtered at his commands, and no end is in sight. Even the Democratic candidates for President have proven themselves a pack of cowards by backing away from doing the right thing, and getting us the hell OUT of there, once one of them has been elected. Meanwhile we, the SHEEPLE, sit back and do nothing! Therefore, we have blood is on OUR hands, too. Every American who isn’t actively opposing this war, and demanding Congress that they present a united front to immediately end this bloodbath – is an accomplice to it! And is just as guilty as Bush, by being an accomplice.
We can’t expect any help from the U.S. Supreme Court in this, or any other matter. It has been destroyed for decades to come, as just mentioned. Thanks to Bush, and the U.S. Senate who confirmed his repressive appointees, it is very possible that no American alive today may ever again see the benevolent sort of Court that emancipated American women, via Roe vs. Wade, from being forced to gestate UNwanted pregnancies to term, against their will. Or which ended the hateful discrimination against interracial marriage in its Loving vs. Virginia decision. Or which made the ultimate demise and subsequent extinction of segregation inevitable in its key Brown vs. Board of Education decision, back in 1954. We will be very lucky if we can go another 20 years without seeing the fulfillment of George Orwell’s ghastly societal vision, in his novel, 1984 – merely a few decades later than he’d prophesied.
The issue of same-sex marriage (SSM) is one that the U.S. Supreme Court (as it existed before Bush and the Senate ruined it) could easily have settled in favor of fairness, just as it did in the case of Loving vs. Virginia, in 1967. But now, thanks to this unthinkable disaster for liberty, we (the gays and their straight allies) will have to fight tooth and nail for it – state-by-state. What a sad commentary on what America has already become, thanks to the RRR Cult, and its founder (may he suffer eternal torment for that!), the late Jerry Falwell.
Back to the Same-Sex Unions group. Its stated mission “is to secure the freedom and the right of same-sex couples to enter into legally-recognized civil marriage, having all the federal and state benefits (in all 50 States!) and responsibilities which that entails.”
Whether you are GLBT, or a Straight egalitarian ally of the gay community, I encourage you to subscribe to it, and participate in it. Let’s all unite and fight the RRR Cult and its loathsome agendas, 24/7, 365-1/4 days a year -- all the way to its well-deserved extinction!
