I wrote the article below in October, 2004, and posted it in several relevant Usenet newsgroups. And thus, of course, it was seen by FAR too small an audience. Even if all who read it had heeded its warning, it would have been a drop in the bucket. Too little, and 'way too late. What really was needed, back then, was a means by which tens of millions of Americans could have seen it, read it, and then acted upon it. But now it's 2007, and I still have no idea of how such widespread dissemination of it could have been accomplished. (Feel free to add a comment, below, if you can suggest a solution!)
I really wish I could have the answer to that -- because in the 2008 general election, we MAY have one final chance to reverse the horror that GW Bush has almost surely made inevitable for America, possibly for all time to come. One last, and very frail, chance. If only people can learn about what has been happening, and the utter gravity of the situation, in time to act! Any concerned American could have sounded an alarm like this one, while there was still time -- and I only wish that thousands of them had done so! The terrible danger should have been obvious to millions. Why weren't enough people thinking?!? And why are so many millions of people still unaware of this process?
Flashback to October, 2004... and the warning that I issued. Which few ever were able to read in time, and which thus went unheeded ---
If we want to continue living in a FREE America, then we absolutely must elect John Kerry on Tuesday. Read on, and you'll see for yourself that that is absolutely true.
The above is not in the least an exaggeration. If Bush wins, then tyranny such as America hasn't experienced in its worst nightmares is likely inevitable, and inexorably right around the corner. And from Nov. 3rd on, unpreventable and irrevocable.
Quite literally, this country's best chance to remain free is for the huge block of tens of millions of voters between 18 and 35 to make sure that they get out and vote overwhelmingly for Kerry today. This article explains in detail precisely why that is the case.
PLEASE do yourself the biggest favor of your whole life, and spend the five minutes that it takes to read and digest the full contents of this article.
[[[ The following is my own analysis. I'm affiliated with no groups nor PACs, and my writing, and the concerns expressed herein, are entirely my own. And just for the record, I'm a registered Republican... but only because I'm doing all I can from within that party to help to wrest it free of the RRR ("agendas, regardless of their party. ]]]
If the mistake of electing (not re-electing) Bush is made, then there will be no way that the horrific consequences detailed below can be averted. An irrevocable & unstoppable process will have been set in motion, and our lives would never be the same again.
Just as many historical geologists think that the last ice age may have been sudden -- as evidenced by frozen mammoths having been found in the Arctic with vegetation still in their mouths -- the end of the American system we have always treasured and assumed to be indestructable could be upon us almost without warning. We can be caught just as surely -- and almost as suddenly -- as the residents of Pompeii were cooked and buried without warning by a pyroclastic flow from Vesuvius.
The society that results won't make the one described in George Orwell's "1984" look good. But it may very well look like a close parallel to the American system that would result from that horrendous mistake. And that would be incomprehensible.
For those for whom the Bible has meaning -- THIS could easily be HOW the long-prophesied Tribulation Period described in Revelation can begin.
If you read this post fairly and without prejudice, you will see for yourself that the situation is EXACTLY as I just described. Maybe you've seen an earlier vesion of the pargraphs below before, and maybe you haven't. But either way, now is the time for you to take what it says very seriously!
If you care about America -- and your personal liberties, then it is imperative that GW Bush NOT be elected to a second term.
This is why ---
It's October 19, 2004, and Hal Lindsey (author of "The Late, Great Planet Earth") has just pointed out on TBN (Trinity Broadcasting Network) that it's almost a certainty that whomever is President between 2005 and 2009, he will get to appoint "two, and possibly as many as four, Justices to the U.S. Supreme Court."
A favorite refrain from the RRR Cult's leaders, and its lemmings who parrot them, is that "unelected, activist judges legislate from the bench." So let's take a look at the ramifications of those proclamations about our Judicial Branch of government, by the "Religious" Radical Right.
FIRST of all, consider that the only "legislating" from the bench that ever is done is 100% legitimate. It's called "Judicial Law," and when it's a majority decision that's an interpretation of the U.S. Constitution by the U.S. Supreme Court, it supercedes ALL statutory law, and can be contravened only by a later reversal by that court, or by a Constitutional Amendment. So this obvious absence of a basic knowledge of American civics on their part of the cult's lemmings (and the depth to which its leaders will reach in order to spread its lying propaganda) is duly noted. As well as the lemmings' typical -- and unquestioning -- obvious gullibility that's proven by their consistently falling for the cult's lies and propaganda, hook, line and sinker!
It's called the Balance of Powers, and checks-and-balances. That's in the Constitution. It's what keeps the three branches of government (Executive, Legislative, and Judicial) from overreaching their power, in each case. (Think "rock, scissors, paper.")
Congress has the power to enact statutory law, and to initiate Constitutional Amendments. In the case of statutory law, those can be nullified -- totally legally -- by the U.S. Supreme Court. But if the Supreme Court appears to go too far, then the Constitution can be amended to override its decision.
All Supreme Court Justices are "activists" or they wouldn't be there. Including the socially-conservative ones. The only reason that the RRR cult whines about that is because their activists happen to be in the minority.
Oh. And their "activist" judges (whom they refer to as "constructionists" -- thus, a dishonest attempt to make a distinction with regard to "activism") also happen to be "unelected." No surprise, since that's what the Constitution specifies: that Supreme Court Justices will be presidentially appointed, subject to confirmation by Congress. (And thus, not elected by the people.)
What hypocrisy, and what stupidity, on the part of the "Religious" Radical Right. Americans can thank God, their lucky stars, or whatever else anyone may happen to believe in, that the Supreme Court's majority still is comprised of social liberals who stand up for the personal liberties and rights of the people.
If Bush wins this election, American society very likely will quickly and inexorably begin to devolve into one that could make the former Soviet Union look tame. There IS a "slippery slope," but it doesn't lead toward expanded liberties, as hyperconservatives seem to fear. It leads precisely in the opposite direction, once the catalyst has been triggered. That is not an overstatement. Our personal liberties and rights have been defended for all of our lives by a Supreme Court having an egalitarian majority. And that's hanging by a very fragile thread right now, since many of its recent decisions have supported liberty by only a 5-4 majority. As Hal Lindsey pointed out, it is almost certain that at least two, and possibly as many as four, of the Court's Justices will not be able to hang on for another 4 years if Bush is elected. The Court has at this point gone longer without any turnover than it has at anytime in the nation's history.
Suppose that the majority had voted the OTHER way, just in these decisions, over the last 50 years:
1954 -- The beginning of the end of segregation would not have been initiated by the Court's "Brown vs. Board of Education" decision.
1967 -- Many states' hateful bans on interracial marriage would have survived, and might still be in force today. The Court's "Loving vs. Virginia" decision ended that discrimination.
1973 -- Tens of millions of women who were enabled by a beneficent Supreme Court to put their lives back on track by having access to safe and legal abortion would instead have been forced to gestate unwanted reproductive-process entities to term against their will, or seek dangerous or exorbitant illegal abortions, or travel to a free state for one. The latter would exclude millions of lower-economic-level women, and it would impose unconscionable second-class-citizen status upon all American women. We know even today,  years later, that many states would still choose to repress or prohibit this vital human right, if they could. The Court's "Roe vs. Wade" decision emancipated ALL of America's girls and women!
1997 -- Without our sensible and benevolent Court, on June 26th, the repressive, so-called "Communication Decency Act" (CDA) which would have severely impacted freedom of speech, and imposed censorship upon the internet, would have survived.
2003 -- The government would not have so very sensibly been kicked out of the bedrooms of American citizens. ("Lawrence vs. Texas")
And those are just some of the key cases. A repressive Court obviously would have disregarded our rights just as consistently in many lesser cases, as well.
If that weren't bad enough, consider this: The liberty-defending courts (U.S. Supreme Court included, but don't forget such ones on the state level as Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court, which sensibly recognized that there is no valid or Constitutional reason to deny marriage to same-sex couples), can directly stand up for our rights and nullify attempts to repress them. But -- there's far more to this than that. There's the psychological impact upon legislators as they write their proposed laws, who currently (and sensibly) keep a gimlet eye on the courts that could (and usually still would, in today's America) strike them down in a heartbeat if they didn't work hard to ensure that their legislation doesn't trample on any of our liberties.
The passage of the ban on the SECOND-trimester ID&E abortion procedure (lyingly called "partial-birth" by its dishonest proponents) was an exception to that. The Republican majority in both houses of Congress were under intense pressure by the neocon (RRR Cult) constituents that they perceive as being their base, to pass the measure -- again without the exception for the health of the woman that the Supreme Court has indicated would have made the act viable. So it's already been invalidated by three federal judges, and when it gets to the Supreme Court, it almost surely will be struck down, just as Nebraska's similar law was -- for the same reason.
But most of the time, state legislatures and Congress don't swim so obviously against the current -- because thay already know ahead of time that an egalitarian-majority Supreme Court stands in the wings, ready and able to scour the Constitution with a fine-tooth comb with the clear intention of doing whatever they legitimately can to defend our personal liberties whenever possible.
WHAT IF -- the Supreme Court no longer were of that mind?
THEN what would the state legislatures and Congress -- so many of which now are controlled by neocon Republicans who harbor open and blatant disdain for so many of our rights -- DO?
THINK about that!
And then -- all who are reading these words -- PLEASE vote for Kerry (and please not for Ralph Nader, which would be the equivalent of handing your vote to Bush) -- and help save America from such an awful and unthinkable cataclysm. Remember -- Supreme Court appointments are for life! And if that Court becomes repressive, very few (if any) Americans alive today will ever again know a Supreme Court that consistently and fairly defends their rights. If there EVER were a time not to take freedom for granted, THIS is that time. More so by far than at any other time in any of our lifetimes. Exponentially more so.
This IS the most critically-important election in our lifetimes.
Kerry has promised to appoint egalitarians to the Supreme Court. And Bush has pledged not to, almost in as many words.
If we want to remain a free country -- it's entirely up to US. And the time already is here! It's already possible to vote, either in real-time, or by absentee ballot, in most states, as you read this, and millions already have. (If at all possible, try to get a PAPER ballot, rather than voting electronically. Electronic voting machines are vulnerable to tampering. Particularly the Diebold ones!) WE, the registered voters of America, are the only ones who can prevent the horrendous scenario above from playing out.
Remember, too, that we are the world's only military superpower, and thus, we still (at the time of this writing) are the STRONGEST bastian of liberty on the planet. If the USA loses its freedom, there will be NO place for *any* of us to run!
We have only this ONE shot at remaining a free nation. Please consider that with the utmost gravity. If we fail to ensure the continuance of that on Tuesday; if we fail to elect Kerry -- there'll be no second chances.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Well -- Now that it's 2007, DO we still have ANY chance to avert this disaster, now that Bush has already damaged the Supreme Court so grievously? Probably ONLY if Bush is unable to further poison the Court with a third anti-liberty appointee. And then ONLY if we elect a Democrat President in 2008. (On the Republican side, there's no chance at all; the only potential social liberal, Rudy Giuliani, has already promised that he will appoint only "conservatives" to the Court, if given the opportunity.)