CORRECT name for Iraqi "insurgents:" The Resistance

Remember how France dealt with its occupation forces during WW II? Countless numbers of loyal French were a constant thorn in the German forces' side, and they were known simply as "the Resistance." You can see a good example of it in the movie, "The Great Escape," in which they shoot a carload of German officers at a sidewalk cafe, and then help an escaped American POW escape to Spain.

Today, we are seeing the Resistance reborn. In Iraq. A sovereign country that never should have been invaded. And we can expect to see those patriots continue to resist until ALL of the invading combat troops have left. We do NOT belong there, and in this "war," foisted upon the world by GW Bush, our lying Warmonger-in-Thief, we never have belonged there.

Unfortunately, not all of the so-called insurgency is comprised of Resistance patriots. Since a lot of the violence is directed against civilians, and often where troops aren't even present. That violence is a manifestation of the Civil War that currently is in progress, and is unforgivable, just as all such violence always is. But this doesn't let Bush, or the USA, or its coalition nations in the invasion of Iraq off the hook. Because if it hadn't been for that illegal and tragic invasion, Iraq today would not be having a Civil War!

GW Bush needs to correct his grievous error (albeit 5 years late) and get our troops out of Iraq. NOW! That'll be good for the troops. Good for the world. Good for America (and its worldwide image). And good for Iraq! They may still be having a civil war after we leave -- but we had one of those too. We sorted it all out. And so can they. On their own!

Meanwhile, let's all be honest enough to call those patriotic Iraqis, who simply are defending their own country against occupying forces, what they really are... not "insurgents." They are "The Resistance." And whenever the news media refers to these disruptive patriots as "insurgents" instead, we need to CALL them on that!

FAR Worse than Watergate! The Media didn't follow up. And the Sheeple just sat back and TOOK it!!

Remember that bungled break-in at Democratic HQ in the Watergate that ultimately caused a dishonest President (Nixon) to resign in disgrace?

That was nothing, compared to THIS!

And as far as I've been able to determine, the news media mentioned it only this ONE time!

Woodward and Bernstein should have had a field day with this amazingly blatant and future-altering dirty trick! Why didn't they? Or someone else high enough in the media?

If the tape of this momentous event, or a transcript of it (which you are about to read now) becomes lost to historians, our posterity may NEVER learn or realize that -- THIS was the key event that made G.W. Bush's THEFT of the 2000 Election inevitable and irrevocable. This WAS the turning point! And by now, almost NO one even remembers it -- to the media's eternal shame!

I had fortuitously videotaped ABC's World News Tonight on Thanksgiving Day, 11/20/2000, while it aired live in the Central Time Zone. And immediately realized the magnitude of this story that was included in it. So I transcribed it, and put it out in the Usenet Newsgroups BEFORE the pre-recorded newscast aired on the West Coast. For those who read it right away, out there, this actually was a preview!

THE ULTIMATE DIRTY TRICK!
The Bombshell that the Media Mysteriously DIDN'T Sieze Upon

This is exactly as I presented the transceipt on Usenet. In this transcript, for the greatest accuracy, I have italicized the words to denote the inflections they bore when actually spoken during the event. Those italicizations are not, in any instance, an emphasis on my part.

= = = = = = = = = = = =

NARRATOR (ABC's Bill Redecker): "At the time, it seemed spontaneous -- angry residents denied the right to see their votes recounted. But the reality is, it was an orchestrated Republican protest. And most were not even from here."

REPORTER: "Are you local? Are you... ?"
NARRATOR: "Her guide, a Republican public relations officer, cut that conversation short."

NARRATOR: "And so it has been, all week long. A public relations effort that has not always been so public. Camped out in a motor home, in the middle of the media staging area, you would think they would want to talk about their mission."

MAN IN RV: "It's a Bush operation."
REPORTER: "It's a BUSH operation?
MAN IN RV: "Yep."
REPORTER: "What goes ON inside this trailer?"
MAN IN RV: "Oh... can't talk to you right now."

(The man in the RV then abruptly closed the door in the reporter's face.)

NARRATOR: "In all, an army of 75 operatives came to Miami to shape public opinion. 'To help the media,' they said."

(A reporter walks alongside one of them, trying to interview him...)

REPUBLICAN OPERATIVE: "And we provide a service for you for surrogates who you'll want to speak to..."

(Scene shifts to an outdoor crowd of protestors, many armed with professionally-printed signs identical to the earlier Democratic campaign signs -- except that instead of "Gore Lieberman," these read "Sore Loserman." Several of them were wearing printed signs on their backs that read, "Enough is Enough.")

NARRATOR: "But they also got involved in leading demonstrations. And were even willing to dress up in seasonal outfits to provide so-called 'protestor color,' for local news reports."

(Camera shows a person dressed in a turkey costume, with another person next to him/her holding a 3' x 4' sign reading, "STUFF THE TURKEY NOT THE BALLOT BOX." Many protestors gathered around them, holding printed signs reading, "Gore. Let our MILITARY VOTE.")

NARRATOR: "In the end, it apparently made a difference. 'Intimidation,' some called it."

DAVID LEAHY, Miami-Dade Election Supervisor: "If what I had envisioned [had] worked out, and there were no objections, we'd be up there now, counting."

[[[ MY Observation: That statement by David Leahy is key! Later, he tried to backpedal on it! But fortunately, the truth was already out -- with the above stunning statement. ]]]

NARRATOR: "They are not. And that Bush operations trailer -- has moved on. Bill Redecker, ABC News, Miami."

= = = = = = = = = = = =

My comments, continued, in the post to Usenet. (Words in italics from here on are emphases on my part, just as I added emphasis to my own comments in that Usenet post, after the presentation of the transcript.):

The above is an exact transcription of the report, which I videotaped from the broadcast. Very surprisingly, since this is such an obvious subversion of the election process, ABC News has not yet put this report on its abcnews.com website -- even though this evening's other stories are detailed there. (????)

If Gore loses this election, there will be three key factors:

(1) Nader's independent run catalyzed this. Without his siphoning tens of thousands of Florida votes away from Gore, the count for Gore would have been overwhelmingly high enough to make all of this Republican dishonesty impossible. (A tragic circumstance, but a legal one. If only Nader had simply put his country first, and stayed out of the race!)

(2) The fouled-up "butterfly" ballot in Palm Beach County, and no concerted attempt to obtain a county-wide revote to correct that. (Legal, but very unfortunate.)

(3) The above DIRTY TRICK. How legal is deliberate partisan intimidation of county officials while engaged in an official ballot re-count?

What a shame for America if Bush should win, in light of this.

And if he does, we should remind him for the next 4 years that -- not only did he get in via the dinosaur of the electoral college (since he lost the popular vote) -- his thugs LITERALLY stole the election through the implementation of the above very sleazy action.

= = = = =

Concluding comment, on 2-9-2001 --

(And as we know now, his inauguration was the result of all of the above, and via judicial fiat on the part of the U.S. Supreme Court. Bush is not even remotely the elected President. Gore is. Bush is the appointed President. And the Court ran roughshod over the will of the people, to do that. The REPUBLICAN-appointed, partisan Justices, only, accomplished that infamous, shameful, and inexcusable deed.

The ONLY Biblical passage that "defends" a fetus considers it only to be PROPERTY. And the passage condones slavery! Ex. 21:20-25.

Let's look first at Ex. 21:22-25 ---

22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she has a miscarriage but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

First off, the person being defended by those verses clearly is the woman. (There's no suggestion that her fetus be removed and evaluated for injuries, so that the appropriate penalties of "an eye for an eye" or "a tooth for a tooth" could properly be imposed upon the assailant. And verses 23-25 make it quite clear that only the woman's injuries are being considered, here.) (Emphasis in verses 22-23, above, is mine.)

And the penalty for causing a miscarriage only (covered by verse 22, clearly could be pretty much anything -- or nothing! There's nothing in there to imply that a capital offense had been committed.)

Next -- I love it whenever Anti-Choicers/RRR cultists draw upon that passage, thinking that it somehow supports their stance. Because it would be hard to come up with one that could be used as a better example of just how UNlikely it is that the Bible would to the extent of defending RPEs.

GLOSSARY RPE -- Reproductive-Process Entity. Any entity of the four stages of the human reproductive process: gametes (sperm & ovum), zygote, embryo, and fetus. ALL four are living, potential people. Interesting Fact More than 1,000,000,000,000,000 (that's a quadrillion) Stage One potential people are electively aborted DAILY, worldwide, by men, while the Anti-Choicers hypocritically look the other way and whistle a tune. And while they continue to seek to disrupt and wreck the lives and future opportunities of millions of women.

Here's another reason why. Ex. 21:20-21 (NIV) ...

20 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

Here we see the Bible treating:

A. An already-human being (person) as mere property.

B. The slave can be either a male or a female.

C. There is no penalty to the assailant if death doesn't occur.

D. If death does occur, the penalty is unspecified.

So let's consider this scenario: A 13-year-old girl (or it could be a boy) suddenly and inxplicably provokes the wrath of her owner, who takes a rod and violently thrashes her mercilessly to within a millimeter of her life, and leaves her lying in a senseless and unconscious bloody heap in the middle of a dusty road. She lies there in abject agony, mixed with periods of unconsciousness, for two days and nights. Then, 47 hours, 59 minutes and 59 seconds after the beating, she manages to struggle to her feet and stagger off, crippled and maimed, teeth broken off, arm broken, and with an eye put out. The penalty to her owner for having inflicted such horrendous, unconscionable and cruel damage? NONE!!

Or she DIES. What is her owner's penalty then? It's unspecified. For all we know, it could be 3 lashes on the back of his hand by a fellow slave owner, wielding a wet noodle.

Given all of this, any notion that the Bible would be concerned with mere RPEs becomes totally ludicrous.

Abortion Rights Worldwide -- Good Progress, but still a long way to go!

Green is excellent, and blue is good, in the world map below, which comprises part of a really neat poster that is published by The Center for Reproductive Rights. If you're as concerned for the accessablity of this vital remedy as most egalitarians are, it can be a valuable addition to your freedom-enhancer resources.

According to this source, 61% of the world's people currently live in countries where induced abortion is permitted either for a wide range of reasons or upon request, without restriction as to reason. In contrast, 26% of akk people reside in countries where abortion is generally prohibited. Think about that! This means that more than 1/4 of the world's 2 billion teenage girls and women of gestational age are subject to being forced to gestate UNwanted pregnancies to term, against their will. Put another way, all those women are in danger of being subjected to a 9-month-long form of rape.

The information below is included in the .pdf file above, and I urge you to read it, because it is far more detailed and complete... concisely packaged as a 2-page document. But for this blog, I think it's good to show the lists of the MOST free and the MOST repressive nations.

The FREE Nations --

Unfortunately, several of these nations (including the USA) saddle teenage girls with parental authorization or notification requirement... which leave the door wide open for potential abuse, rejection, or forced future-opportunities-disrupting gestation at the hands of repressive (RRR Cult-type) parents! In those cases, a "PA" notation follows the name of the otherwise-free country. And as free as they are, several of these nations have gestational limitations. "SA" indicates a requirement for spousal authorization.

Albania, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina–PA, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, China, Croatia–PA, Cuba–PA, Czech Republic–PA, Dem. People's Rep. of Korea, Denmark–PA, Estonia, France, Fmr. Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia–PA, Georgia, Germany, Greece–PA, Guyana, Hungary, Italy–PA, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro–PA, Nepal, Netherlands, Norway–PA, Portugal–PA, Puerto Rico, Romania, Russia, Serbia–PA, Singapore, Slovak Republic–PA, Slovenia–PA, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkey–SA/PA, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United States–PA, Uzbekistan, Vietnam.

The SLAVE Nations --

Exceptions as follows, when so noted: F -- Fetal impairment. I -- Incest. R -- Rape. U -- Law is unclear. x -- Recent legislation eliminated all exceptions.

Afghanistan, Andorra, Angola, Antigua & Barbuda, Bangladesh, Bhutan–R/I, Brazil–R, Brunei, Darussalam, Central African Republic, Chile–x, Congo (Brazzaville), Côte d'Ivoire, Dem. Rep. of Congo, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador–x, Gabon, Guatemala, Guinea–Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Kenya, Kiribati, Laos, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya–PA, Madagascar, Malawi–SA, Mali-R/I, Malta, Marshall Islands–U, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico–R/F, Micronesia–U, Monaco, Myanmar, Nicaragua–x, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Palau-U, Panama–PA/R/F, Papua, New Guinea, Paraguay, Philippines, San Marino, Sao Tome & Principe, Senegal, Soloman Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan–R, Suriname Syria–SA/PA, Tanzania, Tonga, Tuvalu, Uganda, United, Arab, Emirates–SA/PA, Venezuela, West Bank & Gaza Strip, Yemen.

Nations that are not listed in either group, above, are the semi-slave nations. Ones that impose difficult restrictions that still end up forcing many millions of women to gestate to term against their will.

Per the Alan Guttmacher Institute, 50 million abortions are performed annually, worldwide. Only about 3% of those are provided in the USA. This means that over any given recent 20-year-long period, fully one BILLION (yes, with a "B") teenage girls and women potentially have their life options restored to pre-ill-timed pregnancy levels. Where abortion is safe and legally, we can pretty much drop that word, "potentially." Unfortunately, though, thanks to the world's still being subjected to enslavement of its female population in this regard, a huge number of those women never get to have futures. Because of those 50 million abortions performed worldwide, annually, only 20 million are legal, and the other 30 million are illegal! Those latter nations need to outgrow and reject such criminal stupidity!

Here in the USA, millions of women don't realize just how lucky they are that in 1973, a beneficent and fair-minded U.S. Supreme Court (diametrically unlike the repressive on that G.W. Bush has saddled us with, probably for decades to come) EMANCIPATED them in the greatest act of egalitarianism since Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, and the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and '65.

President G.W. Bush's greatest legacies will be the shameful ones of causing the wanton and illegal murder of over 100,000 innocent citizens in a sovereign nation that threatened no one (and he lied our way into it), getting countless tens of thousands of our own soldiers wastefully destroyed or maimed for life -- and POISONING the U.S. Supreme Court, making it the first non-egalitarian Court in more years than any American has been alive.

Freedom really is NOT free! Never has been. And now we are TRULY going to have to fight tooth and nail to retain it, and to advance it... thanks to that tragic turn of events!

"What is a Liberal?" By JFK. (Education for Neocons!)

"What is a liberal?"

Speech by Sen. John F. Kennedy
Acceptance of the New York Liberal Party Nomination, September 14, 1960

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

But first, I would like to say what I understand the word "Liberal" to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.

In short, having set forth my view -- I hope for all time -- two nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take the opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the state and the citizen. This is my political credo: I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

Our responsibility is not discharged by announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons that liberalism is our best and only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 campaign is whether our government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility.

Our liberalism has its roots in our diverse origins. Most of us are descended from that segment of the American population which was once called an immigrant minority. Today, along with our children and grandchildren, we do not feel minor. We feel proud of our origins and we are not second to any group in our sense of national purpose. For many years New York represented the new frontier to all those who came from the ends of the earth to find new opportunity and new freedom, generations of men and women who fled from the despotism of the czars, the horrors of the Nazis, the tyranny of hunger, who came here to the new frontier in the State of New York. These men and women, a living cross section of American history, indeed, a cross section of the entire world's history of pain and hope, made of this city not only a new world of opportunity, but a new world of the spirit as well.

Tonight we salute Governor and Senator Herbert Lehman as a symbol of that spirit, and as a reminder that the fight for full constitutional rights for all Americans is a fight that must be carried on in 1961.

Many of these same immigrant families produced the pioneers and builders of the American labor movement. They are the men who sweated in our shops, who struggled to create a union, and who were driven by longing for education for their children and for the children's development. They went to night schools; they built their own future, their union's future, and their country's future, brick by brick, block by block, neighborhood by neighborhood, and now in their children's time, suburb by suburb.

Tonight we salute George Meany as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day. But in 1960 the cause of liberalism cannot content itself with carrying on the fight for human justice and economic liberalism here at home. For here and around the world the fear of war hangs over us every morning and every night. It lies, expressed or silent, in the minds of every American. We cannot banish it by repeating that we are economically first or that we are militarily first, for saying so doesn't make it so. More will be needed than goodwill missions or talking back to Soviet politicians or increasing the tempo of the arms race. More will be needed than good intentions, for we know where that paving leads. In Winston Churchill's words, "We cannot escape our dangers by recoiling from them. We dare not pretend such dangers do not exist."

And tonight we salute Adlai Stevenson as an eloquent spokesman for the effort to achieve an intelligent foreign policy. Our opponents would like the people to believe that in a time of danger it would be hazardous to change the administration that has brought us to this time of danger. I think it would be hazardous not to change. I think it would be hazardous to continue four more years of stagnation and indifference here at home and abroad, of starving the underpinnings of our national power, including not only our defense but our image abroad as a friend. This is an important election -- in many ways as important as any this century -- and I think that the Democratic Party and the Liberal Party here in New York, and those who believe in progress all over the United States, should be associated with us in this great effort.

The reason that Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson had influence abroad, and the United States in their time had it, was because they moved this country here at home, because they stood for something here in the United States, for expanding the benefits of our society to our own people, and the people around the world looked to us as a symbol of hope.

I think it is our task to re-create the same atmosphere in our own time. Our national elections have often proved to be the turning point in the course of our country. I am proposing that 1960 be another turning point in the history of the great Republic.

Some pundits are saying it's 1928 all over again. I say it's 1932 all over again. I say this is the great opportunity that we will have in our time to move our people and this country and the people of the free world beyond the new frontiers of the 1960s.

(Emphasis, above, is mine.)

May we never forget that JFK not only went on to become a fine President, but he also was a great statesman. We have a real shortage of those, these days! Along with a serious misperception by many that liberals aren't some of the most intelligent and sensible people this nation has to offer.

Source: http://cjnetworks.com/~cubsfan/whatis.html

Have you EVER told a LIE? (Key Talking Points!)

If you have, then guess what? You've broken one of the Ten Commandments! (Read on, no matter what your faith may be, or what you may or may not believe. This gets good!)

What about shopping? Have you ever done it on Sunday? (Or Saturday, if that happens to be your religion's sabbath?) Then, by golly, you've broken yet another Commandment!

Have you ever attended a seance? Played with Tarot Cards? A Ouija Board? Had some tea leaves read, or in any other way had dealings with a soothsayer or fortune teller? ANY of those things? Yeah? Hoo boy!! You're in BIG trouble now! The Bible says that associating one's self with attempting to divine the future, or with trying to contact the spirit world is an "abomination" to God, and engaging in any such practices carries a penalty of DEATH!

SIDE NOTE: As a normal Christian (and we should never be confused with the hateful and delusional pseudo-Christians of the "Religious" Radical Right -- the RRR Cult), any proselytizing I do is of the passive (non-invasive) variety -- such as leaving sensible (non-bigoted) tracts lying around for people to either take or leave. So I won't be discussing salvation in here. Just in case you might have thought that was coming. It is very important that society comes to the full realization that normal Christians are everyone's sensible, fair-minded, pretty intelligent, ordinary, unobtrusive, work-a-day next-door neighbors. Unlike the RRR cultists, we are quiet, low-profile, and friendly people who usually have a live-and-let-live attitude with respect to the personal affairs and behaviors of other people. Very few of us ever engage in any form of busybodyism or discrimination. In America, 83% of the population professes Christianity. Only a mere 6% of those are obnoxious and bigoted RRR Cultists. The other 94% of us are normal and tolerant. We comprise about 250,000,000 of the USA's 300 million people. IF we were anything like the RRR cultists, America would be a tyrannical theocracy that would make Iran look benign by comparison. So PLEASE -- keep these two completely opposite groups of people straight in your minds, and don't blame "Christians" when you see hatefulness and bigotry. We do NOT deserve to be wrongfully painted with the RRR Cult's brush. (And one more thing... the RRR loves to make people think that Christians oppose abortion. That's a major LIE. Fully 2/3 of Americans support the right to choose, and reliable polls show that has been consistently true for over 30 years. And 5/6 of Americans are normal Christians. Do the math. Most of us are sensibly Pro- Choice! When it comes to breaking that Commandment against lying, RRR cultists are experts at it.)

The above comment needed to be said, in context with this post, and should always be kept in mind. I invite you to make copies of it to pass out and e-mail to your friends.

Whether or not the Bible is relevant to you, the reader of this, it is very relevant to the RRR cultists. Or, at least, they do a really good job of pretending that it is. Since they practice cafeteria theology with it constantly. Whenever any passage seems to support their hate-agendas toward personal liberties, they cite it to beat the band. But when a passage contradicts them, or would prove them to be a collection of hypocrites, they studiously ignore it! Just as they usually ignore soothsayers and mediums... and have no major agendas against them.

And, for example, you will never see an RRR Cult leader cite I Corinthians 5:12-13. (And thus, the mostly-ignorant lemmings of the cult are generally unaware of its very existence!) Here's what it says, in the NIV Bible.

12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside.

Do you have ANY idea of the very magnitude of the command issued to Christians in that passage? It literally tells the RRR Cult (and anyone else who feels so inclined) to BUTT OUT of the personal affairs of people in society, in general. It makes it crystal clear that the Bible neither authorizes nor appoints ANY person to act as an enforcer of its precepts vis-a-vis society! In short, the Bible authorizes NO Gestapo!

That is DEVASTATING to the RRR Cult. It de-legitimizes ALL of their intrusive and obnoxious agendas against personal liberties.

Here's why. Take note of the words, "Are you not to judge those inside?" That refers to the only controlling action that the Bible authorizes for Christians: CHURCH discipline. Congregations are authorized to take certain (non-torturous or lethal) measures to "correct" the "misbehaviors" and "sins" of fellow believers. But NO one else!

And there goes the very linchpin of all of the hate-agendas of the RRR Cult, right down the drain! Society needs to learn this, and to -- on that basis -- reject all of the cult's loathsome agendas against tens of millions of people in society.

Okay -- that being said, let's get back to LYING.

The RRR Cultists do that habitually. For example, they claim that abortion is sinful, and that the Bible opposes it. Wrong. Abortion is nothing but a hugely-valuable remedy, and it harms people no more than a squirrel's dining on acorns affects oak trees. And it's not even mentioned in the Bible, much less condemned. (And it could have been, if God had felt so inclined when He inspired the writers of the Bible. Since abortion was already being practiced (mostly via abortifacients) in biblical times. And already had been for at least 1,000 years before that.)

And they lie about same-sex marriage (SSM), claiming that "traditional" marriage must be "defended" against it. So we've seen a rash of so-called "Defense of Marriage" laws and state constitutional amendments passed at the cult's urgings. But in reality, there's nothing around that could possibly be more harmless than SSM. There's no way that any opposite-sex couple's marriage could be harmed in the slightest if a gay couple in their community were to be legally married. And gays don't engage in more sex because they get married, so gays' having sex can't be used as an argument against SSM. Any sexually-active person, gay or straight, will have sex whether he/she is married or not. (Those "sanctity of marriage" arguments that the RRR loves to spew are meaningless, too. Consider: How "sacred" are the millions and millions of NON-religious marriages that are performed by JPs, ship captains, judges in courthouses, etc.? And those arguments that "marriage is for producing children" doesn fly, either, as a reason for excluding gay couples from the institution. Since millions of couples are sterile, or prefer not to have kids... and yet are allowed to marry, without challenge.)

There's a LOT of ammo in this post that you can use against the RRR Cult. Not the least of which is to point out all of the hypocrisies I've revealed about them in here. They whine about gays, and seek to make the lives of millions of them miserable by subjecting them to dismissal from military service, and discriminating against them in the areas of housing and the workplace. And they oppose SSM.

Isn't that interesting? Don't we always hear the RRR cultists claiming that they are "pro-life?" Consider this: One of the key things that marriage does is to provide an extra incentive for the couple to remain monogamous and faithful to one another. Now granted, we all know that this doesn't work out that way, a large percentage of the time. But suppose that SSM were universally legal, and that tens of thousands of gay couples got married. That extra incentive to remain monogamous would work with some of them, and that means that some folks who otherwise would likely contract HIV/AIDS via casual sex -- wouldn't. So legalizing SSM clearly would save some lives. So -- the next time you talk to an RRR cultist, remind him/her of this, and then ask the person this question: "How much is ONE person's life worth? By opposing SSM, which is harmless, you are contributing to the condemnation of some people to deaths that otherwise would not have occurred. And you call yourself 'pro-life?'"

Finally, ask them why they are picking on homosexuals and their behavior when there are FAR MORE people engaging in practices that the Bible condemns at least as much. If you happen to be gay, tell them that you might listen more to them AFTER they have launched an all-out campaign (of at least the magnitude of their crusades against women and gays) against Tarot Card and Ouija Board Players, fortune-tellers, and mediums.

Take the above talking points and run with them! The RRR Cult is eminently defeatable!

More FUN than you could ever imagine!

Enjoyment of freedom comes in many forms, and if you love to travel, and enjoy the freedom of the open road, why not turn all of North America, Europe, or Australia into your back yard -- and be paid to explore it at will? Part-time, full-time, seasonally, or even just on weekends? And take the oodles of frequent-flyer miles that you'll be accumulating in the course of doing that, and explore the rest of the planet, air-fare-free? Learn all the details for yourself, right here.

Enjoy!! Life just doesn't get much better than that! (Just picture yourself inside a scene like the one above... whenever you'd like to be there!) And we invite you to tell us of any other ways that you have discovered, which enable you to maximize enjoyment of the liberties that you possess!

The "Religious" Right. Was It REALLY Bush's "Base?"

The Big CON: The "Religious Right" as Bush's "Base."

Here are the Indisputable FACTS.

It has been well-documented by 11-02-04's accurate exit polls that only 17.16% of those who went to the polls voted for Bush on the basis of so-called "moral" issues.

(Derived thus: 22% voted primarily of the basis of "values," and 78% of those who did so voted for Bush... for a total of 17.16% voters who voted for "values" from the standpoint of REPRESSING liberties. The remainder voted for Kerry, having defending personal liberties as their most important issue.) That means that 82.64% of those who voted for Bush -- for Bush! -- not voters overall -- voted for him for OTHER reasons than "values" being foremost. For them, if "values" were an issue for some, they took back burner position to such relevant issues as the war and the economy. Thus, the "values-voter" control-freaks who voted for Bush were outnumbered by those who voted for him based upon relevant issues by a ratio of about six to one.

(Bush can consider himself very lucky that 82.84% of his voters actually were obtuse enough to vote for him based on any issues, considering what a proven dishonest and thug-employing warmonger he is.) (It's like the "Mirror" in the UK astutely asked: "How can 59,054,087 Americans be so DUMB?")

That's the KINDEST possible cut to the bigots. But another aspect to the reality of all of this comes from factoring in the voters who went for Kerry... virtually NONE of whom (obviously) did so in hopes of seeing the above repressive agendas being supported.

Let's use these total vote tallies (which each increased somewhat since they first were reported, but the percentages didn't change)...

Bush .... 59,459,785
Kerry .... 55,949,407
Nader ........ 400,706

...and omit Nader, since I haven't seen exit polls regarding how "moral"-issues-voters related to voting for him. If I could include those votes in this analysis, though, it probably would be even WORSE for the bigots, since Nader supporters tend to siphon off more would-be Democratic votes than Republican ones. So that's a point worth remembering.

17.16% of Bush's vote works out to 10,203,299, using the above tallies. 0% neocons voting for Kerry, of course, is zilch, numbers-wise. So -- without factoring in the irresponsible losers who were eligible to vote, but didn't, that means that out of a total
of115,409,192 votes actually cast for Bush and Kerry on 11-2-04, only a mere 8.84% were cast by neocon/RRR cult-type "values" voters; i.e., voters who had NO regard for some of out most important personal liberties.

Then it REALLY goes downhill fast for those pathetic bigots!

Those who didn't vote, even though they were eligible to, no doubt included some passive/apathetic sympathizers to the RRR cult's agendas. But, for however many of those there may have been, those neocons were of the harmless variety that are of no concern at all for fair-minded and egalitarian defenders of human rights. Why? Because for a person to pose ANY kind of threat to human rights, they must to SOME degree be activists in that respect.

Consider the fact that pretty much the easiest way to be an activist in the most minimal degree these days is to VOTE. Why? Because recently it has become universally possible, in America, to vote by mail, or ahead of time in person, or via absentee ballot. So when a person doesn't even make that minimal an effort to support agendas that interest them, then they have proven their passivity on these issues. So the percentages of bigots among those voters doesn't matter, since passive bigots are not the sort of bigots that anyone needs to be concerned with.

Thankfully, even with everything else that Bush has done to America since his cronies (along with his own dishonesty) slipped him into the back door of the White House, the Thought Police that George Orwell envisioned in 1984 haven't come onto the scene as yet. And without them, we really have no idea how many Americans are closet racists living in America who used to be segregationists, up until their loathsome agenda became extinct, 40 years ago. By being closet racists, they are harmless. No one cares about a person's thoughts. What counts is the way he acts toward others. Even though there probably are millions of such people.

I've been unable to find an exact figure for the percentage of eligible voters that didn't get to the polls, but extrapolating from the figures cited in this article,it must have been very close to 44%. That gives us a total of around 206,087,824 total eligible voters: both the ones who went to the polls, and the 90,678,632 or so who weren't sufficiently motivated by any of the issues, either real or misperceived, to bother to vote. Again -- there is no reason for pro-human rights activists to be concerned about the eligible voters who didn't vote, because such tepid people don't do human rights any harm, nor do they do the forces of bigotry any good. They're like the neutrons in an atom; they add mass/bulk/volume to the population, but when it comes to these issues, they do little or nothing else. So we have a total 90,678,632 lukewarm people who proved that the bigoted agendas of the RRR Cult -- the "Religious" Radical Right -- are of little or no importance to them, so they didn't bother to vote for the candidate most closely aligned with those issues. (Nevertheless, it would be very nice if we could help them to become voting egalitarians!)

Of the U.S. electorate eligible to vote on Nov. 2, 2004, we thus have a total of only 10,203,299 out of 206,087,824 who supported bigoted agendas by voting for Bush with that being the foremost reason for casting that vote. That's only a mere 5%.

An "X" factor could be the 80 million or so NON-eligible voters living in America. Exit polls showed that the younger voters who were old enough and who did vote tended to support Kerry by around 56% vs. 44%. And the voters over 65 tended to support Bush in higher percentages than average -- but there are fewer of those than there are of younger voters.

But there's no real way to come up with figures for how NON-eligible voters might have voted if their viewpoints could be considered, so we're forced either to ignore them, or simply figure that they were fairly evenly split, as was the case for the overall election... which went 51% Bush, 49% Kerry, and less than 1% Nader.

BOTTOM LINE: Of the American electorate eligible to vote, only a mere 5% are active supporters of the RRR Cult's heinous agendas against human rights and personal liberties. FIVE PERCENT. That's a ratio of 20-1 of people who either support human rights actively or for whom opposition to them is of a low enough priority that they didn't even bother to actively support those loathsome agendas against safe & legal abortion-upon-request and equal rights for gays by voting for Bush. VERY heartening!!

There is NO mandate for Bush that can be ascribed to the RRR Cult, and it is ludicrous for him to consider those hateful loons to be his "base." Only a mere 5% of America's eligible voters supported him on that basis.

Nineteen out of every 20 of America's 206 million eligible voters either are opposed to the loathsome agendas of the RRR cult, or are not sufficiently interested in them to even minimally support them.

Out of all that, the only bad news is this: A glass of drinking water that's comprised of 5% arsenic would be deadly poisonous. And that is precisely the danger currently posed to personal freedom in America by the hateful and control-freakish RRR cult as it exists today. The RRR Cult is a dangerous infestation afflicting society. Its lemming-like adherents are every bit as ignorant and bigoted as were the segregationists that preceded them (in the South). As long as it exists, we can't safely ignore it, and its vicious and insidious agendas, any more than we could safely ignore the arsenic in this analogy. The activists of the RRR Cult are dedicated, 24/7, to the absolute destruction of many valuable liberties that hugely benefit many tens of millions of people, and they constantly are concocting new ways to accomplish that. Methods and tactics that need to be countered and nullified.

More than ever before, thinking, sensible, and egalitarian Americans need to work HARD to oppose the loathsome RRR Cult on all fronts, and neutralize and get rid of that poisonous threat to our individual liberties. STARTING with vigorous and vocal opposition to any more nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court who are Anti-Choice.

We are just ONE scary vote away from a reversal of the Court's emancipation of teen girls and women in 1973. If that were to happen, this nation would become a divisive hodgepodge of "slave" states and "free" states -- and countless thousands of economically-deprived girls and women would be unable to travel to free states -- and thus would be FORCED either to gestate UNwanted pregnancies to term against their will (at a cost of countless of their pre-ill-timed-pregnancy future opportunities which would have been immediately restored), or be faced with getting dangerous or exorbitantly-expensive illegal abortions. If this happens, America, having been free in this vitally-important regard for more than three decades, will surely become nightmarish.

We CAN make America a Bigotry-Free Zone. The arsenic CAN be filtered out! Especially when 95% of the population is comprised of a combination of human rights activists and a huge number of apathetic people who pose no opposition to our accomplishing that.

And we must do so. Starting today!!!

And we must get a Democrat back into the White House on Jan. 21, 2009!

Gays vastly outnumbered by their Straight ALLIES.

On Jan. 28, 2004, a Usenet participant challenged an earlier post that I'd made, by asking this question:

Please prove that "straight allies almost certainly are in greater numbers than the gays".

To which I responded as follows ---

That's one of the easiest things in the world to do!

Pretty much the highest percentage of gays that anyone claims, in the population, is 10%. But just for fun, let's assume for a moment that figure were true. However... recent polls have shown that the percentage of people in America who would be supportive of same-sex civil unions (but not "marriage,' semantically-speaking... and really, that's the ONLY difference) is now very close to 50%. Any straight person who would not object to same-sex civil unions is an ALLY of the gays. And if we used only 40% (and there are more allies than that, as I just said), then we'd have the following:

Gays -- 10%... 29,000,000 Americans

+ Straight Allies -- 30%... 87,000,000 Americans

= TOTAL Gays & Allies -- 40%... 116,000,000 Americans

Ratio: 3-1. Three times more straight allies than gays. (At least!)

Using more realistic numbers, let's assume that 5% of the population is gay, and that 45%of population favors the granting of the right of gays to have same-sex civil unions. This gives us the following figures, which probably approximate today's reality very closely:

Gays -- 5%... 14,500,000 Americans

+ Straight Allies -- 45%... 130,500,000 Americans

= TOTAL Gays & Allies -- 50%... 145,000,000 Americans

Ratio: 9-1. NINE times more straight allies than gays.

Using either set of figures, those who think (wish) that straight allies of the GLBT Community are few in number, lose, big-time. A ratio of three-to-one is the best they can do with such a claim, but that's unrealistically low. Straight ALLIES of the gays vastly outnumber the gays, themselves. By approximately NINE-to-one.

The source of this next information is:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Relationships/same_sex_marriage_poll_040121.html

________________________________________________

Views of Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Unions:

"Marriage" -- Make legal: 41% ... Keep Illegal: 55%
"Civil Unions" -- Make legal: 46% ... Keep Illegal: 51%

________________________________________________

This reliable ABC News Poll proves the ignorance of homophobes when they attempt to claim that gays have relatively few straight allies. They can wish all they want, but these facts are devastating to their antisocial hopes.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

And -- per CNN's exit polls at the Wisconsin Primary, fully 61% of the people in that HEARTLAND (not "liberal" coastal) state who took the time and effort to actually get out and VOTE --said that they SUPPORT same sex civil unions/marriage. And that was an open primary, in which people from ALL parties, including Republicans, were allowed to vote. The Wisconsin Primary was held more than a week after the same-sex marriages had started in San Francisco, so people were well aware of what they were supporting.

In conclusion, I offer this food for thought. Even by 2004, it was becoming very evident that the agendas of homophobic bigots were entering a fast track toward the Drain of Extinction. Where they ultimately would end up, forevermore, with the equally-hateful and ignorant agenda of the oh-so-similar segregationists, 50 years earlier. Which is HUGE progress toward an egalitarian America, when one considers that even as recently as 1970, it's likely that opposition to same-sex marriage probably would have exceeded 90%... if the issue even were to have been raised at all.

The legalization of same-sex marriage is inevitable, thanks to egalitarian activists. And when it arrives... guess what? It'll be just like 1967 all over again -- when the U.S. Supreme Court's "Loving vs. Virginia" decision struck down all remaining laws against interracial marriage. The sky didn't fall then, and it won't this time either. Because, after all, it's hard to imagine anything more harmless than same-sex marriage. It'll do NO harm to any opposite-sex couples' marriages. And by five years later, the likelihood is that almost no one will even give it a second thought, anymore. And wonder what the fuss had been all about!

WELCOME to Freedom-Lover's Country!

If you live in the USA -- or anywhere else on earth -- and you value and cherish personal freedoms, and loathe any form of repression, censorship, or tyranny, then this is the place for you! You're going to LOVE the information you'll find in here!

The primary purpose of this blog is to provide ideas, talking points, and concepts that can enable the readers -- that's you! -- to devise, employ, and implement effective strategies and tactics that will enable you to both promote and defend any and all personal liberties against ALL of its enemies... from the hateful and UN-Christian RRR Cult (That's the "Religious" Radical Right -- America's very own home-grown version of the Taliban, started 30 years ago by Jerry Falwell), to all other terrorists or terrorist wanna-bes, internal and external. And everyone in between who disrespects or seeks to deny or curtail individual liberties to ANY person or group of people.

Friendly humor in here is encouraged, whenever appropriate. After all, it's FUN to defend things and principles of value. So whenever an agenda that's antithetical to personal liberties takes a hit, and suffers a significant defeat, that is GOOD for society, and good for all of us, as individuals. And accomplishing that is just soo-o-o satisfying!

New strategies, tactics, talking points, relevant facts and articles will be added herein constantly, so come back often, and invite your friends!

You'll see articles to which you may post comments -- and your input will be very welcome. Just one thing about that, though. We cherish freedom of speech, but we will view comments that oppose liberties with the same regard that society holds for shouting "Fire!!" in a crowded theater. There is no place for the promotion of bigotry or discrimination in here, so any such hatefulness appearing in comments will be deleted. As will overt instances of profanity. Say whatever you want, just as long as you don't do those two things. Meanwhile, we will welcome any new talking points, tactics, or ideas for opposing all forms of tyranny, with open arms! And if you learn of a defeat for an agenda or vocal opponent of personal liberties, please provide us with the delicious details. (But please -- always be FACTUAL, and cite sources whenever they are relevant, and it's possible to do so. We want to maintain HIGH standards of integrity. Both because it's the right thing to do... and because the negative other side, which usually is devoid of facts, so has to rely mostly on propaganda and emotional appeals... will find that upsetting. The more challenging we can be to them, and the more we can counter their specious arguments with solid facts -- the more we can erode their antisocial agendas. And the better we can thereby serve society.)

Even though many countries don't defend (or too often, even allow) freedom of (and from) religion, the USA does, and so do we. We believe that every person on earth has the right to believe (or not believe) in any way that he or she chooses, and that all religions are equally valuable, person-by-person. Please remember this, too. We won't appreciate the denigration of any person's religion -- whether atheist, agnostic, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Shinto, or anything else. And religion should never be used as an excuse for seeking to deny liberties to people. Only pseudo-religious cults strive to bludgeon personal liberties. (Such as the RRR Cult.) Nothing justifies bigotry. Opposing individual freedoms is always inexcusable.

Before leaving the subject of the RRR Cult, may I suggest that you visit the article that shows the enormity of the difference between it, and actual Christianity. Click on its title, Have you EVER Told a LIE? (Key Talking Points!)