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
Sunday, December 30, 2007
"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."
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 !! <
>> 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. <
Saturday, December 29, 2007
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 Forest
Here 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...
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 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
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
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
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.
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
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!