Vital WARNING Unseen & Unheeded -- Now America is TRULY in for it!

I wrote the article below in October, 2004, and posted it in several relevant Usenet newsgroups. And thus, of course, it was seen by FAR too small an audience. Even if all who read it had heeded its warning, it would have been a drop in the bucket. Too little, and 'way too late. What really was needed, back then, was a means by which tens of millions of Americans could have seen it, read it, and then acted upon it. But now it's 2007, and I still have no idea of how such widespread dissemination of it could have been accomplished. (Feel free to add a comment, below, if you can suggest a solution!)

I really wish I could have the answer to that -- because in the 2008 general election, we MAY have one final chance to reverse the horror that GW Bush has almost surely made inevitable for America, possibly for all time to come. One last, and very frail, chance. If only people can learn about what has been happening, and the utter gravity of the situation, in time to act! Any concerned American could have sounded an alarm like this one, while there was still time -- and I only wish that thousands of them had done so! The terrible danger should have been obvious to millions. Why weren't enough people thinking?!? And why are so many millions of people still unaware of this process?

Flashback to October, 2004... and the warning that I issued. Which few ever were able to read in time, and which thus went unheeded ---

If we want to continue living in a FREE America, then we absolutely must elect John Kerry on Tuesday. Read on, and you'll see for yourself that that is absolutely true.

The above is not in the least an exaggeration. If Bush wins, then tyranny such as America hasn't experienced in its worst nightmares is likely inevitable, and inexorably right around the corner. And from Nov. 3rd on, unpreventable and irrevocable.

Quite literally, this country's best chance to remain free is for the huge block of tens of millions of voters between 18 and 35 to make sure that they get out and vote overwhelmingly for Kerry today. This article explains in detail precisely why that is the case.

PLEASE do yourself the biggest favor of your whole life, and spend the five minutes that it takes to read and digest the full contents of this article.

[[[ The following is my own analysis. I'm affiliated with no groups nor PACs, and my writing, and the concerns expressed herein, are entirely my own. And just for the record, I'm a registered Republican... but only because I'm doing all I can from within that party to help to wrest it free of the RRR ("agendas, regardless of their party. ]]]

If the mistake of electing (not re-electing) Bush is made, then there will be no way that the horrific consequences detailed below can be averted. An irrevocable & unstoppable process will have been set in motion, and our lives would never be the same again.

Just as many historical geologists think that the last ice age may have been sudden -- as evidenced by frozen mammoths having been found in the Arctic with vegetation still in their mouths -- the end of the American system we have always treasured and assumed to be indestructable could be upon us almost without warning. We can be caught just as surely -- and almost as suddenly -- as the residents of Pompeii were cooked and buried without warning by a pyroclastic flow from Vesuvius.

The society that results won't make the one described in George Orwell's "1984" look good. But it may very well look like a close parallel to the American system that would result from that horrendous mistake. And that would be incomprehensible.

For those for whom the Bible has meaning -- THIS could easily be HOW the long-prophesied Tribulation Period described in Revelation can begin.

If you read this post fairly and without prejudice, you will see for yourself that the situation is EXACTLY as I just described. Maybe you've seen an earlier vesion of the pargraphs below before, and maybe you haven't. But either way, now is the time for you to take what it says very seriously!

If you care about America -- and your personal liberties, then it is imperative that GW Bush NOT be elected to a second term.

This is why ---

It's October 19, 2004, and Hal Lindsey (author of "The Late, Great Planet Earth") has just pointed out on TBN (Trinity Broadcasting Network) that it's almost a certainty that whomever is President between 2005 and 2009, he will get to appoint "two, and possibly as many as four, Justices to the U.S. Supreme Court."

A favorite refrain from the RRR Cult's leaders, and its lemmings who parrot them, is that "unelected, activist judges legislate from the bench." So let's take a look at the ramifications of those proclamations about our Judicial Branch of government, by the "Religious" Radical Right.

FIRST of all, consider that the only "legislating" from the bench that ever is done is 100% legitimate. It's called "Judicial Law," and when it's a majority decision that's an interpretation of the U.S. Constitution by the U.S. Supreme Court, it supercedes ALL statutory law, and can be contravened only by a later reversal by that court, or by a Constitutional Amendment. So this obvious absence of a basic knowledge of American civics on their part of the cult's lemmings (and the depth to which its leaders will reach in order to spread its lying propaganda) is duly noted. As well as the lemmings' typical -- and unquestioning -- obvious gullibility that's proven by their consistently falling for the cult's lies and propaganda, hook, line and sinker!

It's called the Balance of Powers, and checks-and-balances. That's in the Constitution. It's what keeps the three branches of government (Executive, Legislative, and Judicial) from overreaching their power, in each case. (Think "rock, scissors, paper.")

Congress has the power to enact statutory law, and to initiate Constitutional Amendments. In the case of statutory law, those can be nullified -- totally legally -- by the U.S. Supreme Court. But if the Supreme Court appears to go too far, then the Constitution can be amended to override its decision.

All Supreme Court Justices are "activists" or they wouldn't be there. Including the socially-conservative ones. The only reason that the RRR cult whines about that is because their activists happen to be in the minority.

Oh. And their "activist" judges (whom they refer to as "constructionists" -- thus, a dishonest attempt to make a distinction with regard to "activism") also happen to be "unelected." No surprise, since that's what the Constitution specifies: that Supreme Court Justices will be presidentially appointed, subject to confirmation by Congress. (And thus, not elected by the people.)

What hypocrisy, and what stupidity, on the part of the "Religious" Radical Right. Americans can thank God, their lucky stars, or whatever else anyone may happen to believe in, that the Supreme Court's majority still is comprised of social liberals who stand up for the personal liberties and rights of the people.

If Bush wins this election, American society very likely will quickly and inexorably begin to devolve into one that could make the former Soviet Union look tame. There IS a "slippery slope," but it doesn't lead toward expanded liberties, as hyperconservatives seem to fear. It leads precisely in the opposite direction, once the catalyst has been triggered. That is not an overstatement. Our personal liberties and rights have been defended for all of our lives by a Supreme Court having an egalitarian majority. And that's hanging by a very fragile thread right now, since many of its recent decisions have supported liberty by only a 5-4 majority. As Hal Lindsey pointed out, it is almost certain that at least two, and possibly as many as four, of the Court's Justices will not be able to hang on for another 4 years if Bush is elected. The Court has at this point gone longer without any turnover than it has at anytime in the nation's history.

Suppose that the majority had voted the OTHER way, just in these decisions, over the last 50 years:

1954 -- The beginning of the end of segregation would not have been initiated by the Court's "Brown vs. Board of Education" decision.

1967 -- Many states' hateful bans on interracial marriage would have survived, and might still be in force today. The Court's "Loving vs. Virginia" decision ended that discrimination.

1973 -- Tens of millions of women who were enabled by a beneficent Supreme Court to put their lives back on track by having access to safe and legal abortion would instead have been forced to gestate unwanted reproductive-process entities to term against their will, or seek dangerous or exorbitant illegal abortions, or travel to a free state for one. The latter would exclude millions of lower-economic-level women, and it would impose unconscionable second-class-citizen status upon all American women. We know even today, [35] years later, that many states would still choose to repress or prohibit this vital human right, if they could. The Court's "Roe vs. Wade" decision emancipated ALL of America's girls and women!

1997 -- Without our sensible and benevolent Court, on June 26th, the repressive, so-called "Communication Decency Act" (CDA) which would have severely impacted freedom of speech, and imposed censorship upon the internet, would have survived.

2003 -- The government would not have so very sensibly been kicked out of the bedrooms of American citizens. ("Lawrence vs. Texas")

And those are just some of the key cases. A repressive Court obviously would have disregarded our rights just as consistently in many lesser cases, as well.

If that weren't bad enough, consider this: The liberty-defending courts (U.S. Supreme Court included, but don't forget such ones on the state level as Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court, which sensibly recognized that there is no valid or Constitutional reason to deny marriage to same-sex couples), can directly stand up for our rights and nullify attempts to repress them. But -- there's far more to this than that. There's the psychological impact upon legislators as they write their proposed laws, who currently (and sensibly) keep a gimlet eye on the courts that could (and usually still would, in today's America) strike them down in a heartbeat if they didn't work hard to ensure that their legislation doesn't trample on any of our liberties.

The passage of the ban on the SECOND-trimester ID&E abortion procedure (lyingly called "partial-birth" by its dishonest proponents) was an exception to that. The Republican majority in both houses of Congress were under intense pressure by the neocon (RRR Cult) constituents that they perceive as being their base, to pass the measure -- again without the exception for the health of the woman that the Supreme Court has indicated would have made the act viable. So it's already been invalidated by three federal judges, and when it gets to the Supreme Court, it almost surely will be struck down, just as Nebraska's similar law was -- for the same reason.

But most of the time, state legislatures and Congress don't swim so obviously against the current -- because thay already know ahead of time that an egalitarian-majority Supreme Court stands in the wings, ready and able to scour the Constitution with a fine-tooth comb with the clear intention of doing whatever they legitimately can to defend our personal liberties whenever possible.

WHAT IF -- the Supreme Court no longer were of that mind?

THEN what would the state legislatures and Congress -- so many of which now are controlled by neocon Republicans who harbor open and blatant disdain for so many of our rights -- DO?

THINK about that!

And then -- all who are reading these words -- PLEASE vote for Kerry (and please not for Ralph Nader, which would be the equivalent of handing your vote to Bush) -- and help save America from such an awful and unthinkable cataclysm. Remember -- Supreme Court appointments are for life! And if that Court becomes repressive, very few (if any) Americans alive today will ever again know a Supreme Court that consistently and fairly defends their rights. If there EVER were a time not to take freedom for granted, THIS is that time. More so by far than at any other time in any of our lifetimes. Exponentially more so.

This IS the most critically-important election in our lifetimes.

Kerry has promised to appoint egalitarians to the Supreme Court. And Bush has pledged not to, almost in as many words.

If we want to remain a free country -- it's entirely up to US. And the time already is here! It's already possible to vote, either in real-time, or by absentee ballot, in most states, as you read this, and millions already have. (If at all possible, try to get a PAPER ballot, rather than voting electronically. Electronic voting machines are vulnerable to tampering. Particularly the Diebold ones!) WE, the registered voters of America, are the only ones who can prevent the horrendous scenario above from playing out.

Remember, too, that we are the world's only military superpower, and thus, we still (at the time of this writing) are the STRONGEST bastian of liberty on the planet. If the USA loses its freedom, there will be NO place for *any* of us to run!

We have only this ONE shot at remaining a free nation. Please consider that with the utmost gravity. If we fail to ensure the continuance of that on Tuesday; if we fail to elect Kerry -- there'll be no second chances.

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

Well -- Now that it's 2007, DO we still have ANY chance to avert this disaster, now that Bush has already damaged the Supreme Court so grievously? Probably ONLY if Bush is unable to further poison the Court with a third anti-liberty appointee. And then ONLY if we elect a Democrat President in 2008. (On the Republican side, there's no chance at all; the only potential social liberal, Rudy Giuliani, has already promised that he will appoint only "conservatives" to the Court, if given the opportunity.)

Dumb Cluck MITT ROMNEY doesn't even know that Hillary is a Democrat!

If you live in Iowa, you've gotta love this, because it's running on TV ad nauseum! A campaign ad in which Mitt Romney starts out by referring to "Hillary Clinton and the Democrats."

Now, it would have been fine if he'd said, "Hillary Clinton and the other Democrats." But he didn't. Dumber than that, it doesn't get!

(I invite you to click on the links within this article, as you go along. They will hugely enhance the information pertaining to the points being made herein. For your convenience, each of those will open in its own window. Thus, you can observe the content of each, and then close that window, and continue easily in this article.)

That ranks right up their with his purchase of votes, in order to artificially (and unscrupulously) "win" the Republicans' Iowa Straw Poll, back in August. He bussed people in from all over the state, free-of-charge, paid the admission fees for all of them, and lavished free eats upon them when they got there. All in return for their non-binding straw poll "vote" of support. To con Iowans and the country into thinking his candidacy was running strong. (Giuliani is FAR ahead of him, nationwide, and has been for months. But Romney is banking on his millions being able to buy the Iowa Caucus, as well as the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries. Which, he figures, will have enough psychological impact on the campaign to position himself favorably for beating Giuliani on Tsunami Tuesday, and thereby lock up the Republican nomination. He's trying to buy the Presidency with an infusion of millions of his own dollars -- and if Americans don't get wise to this, and reject that tactic at the primary-election polling places, he could get that nomination!)

And then there's his being moronic enough to have flip-flopped on abortion in order to curry favor, quite transparently, with the hateful bigots of the RRR Cult... the pseudo-Religious Radical Right. Most people know that he used to be sensibly and honorably Pro-Choice. And Pro-Choicers (i.e., egalitarians) simply do not suddenly turn overnight into sociopaths who support a loathsome agenda that seeks to force girls and women to gestate-to-term against their will... a very real, 9-month-long form of rape. Not without having something pathologically wrong with their brains. So he obviously is faking it in a desperate attempt to glean support from that tiny minority of bigots that the Republicans seem to regard as their "base." (Out of 300,000,000 Americans, only a mere 5% are RRR cultists. That's only 15 million people. And not all of them vote.)

And he further is stupid enough to think that same-sex marriage (SSM) could actually do some sort of harm to the marriages of opposite-sex couples. And therefore, to "protect" opposite-sex marriage (OSM), it's necessary for people to pass so-called "Defense of Marriage Acts" all over the place. And he even supports the passage of a Constitutional Amendment to that effect. (Which, of course, in order to succeed, would require that the vast majority of Americans would have to be hateful, mindless, or both.)

Personally, I have yet to hear of even so much as one single way that any opposite-sex couple's marriage could be adversely affected by any same-sex couple's having gotten legally married in Massachusetts, Canada, or Europe -- or if SSM were to become fully legalized throughout the USA. Have you? So the enactment of such an amendment would hatefully and ignorantly exclude from marriage hundreds of thousands of people who don't deserve to be excluded any more than interracial couples once were.

By the way -- SSM technically is legal in all of the USA, for the same reason that Massachusetts' Supreme Court recognized that it was legal, there. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that would exclude same-sex couples from marrying. Once that becomes fully realized, as happened for interracial couples, that will be that. (And by a few weeks later, just as we saw in 1967, hardly anyone will whine about it anymore.)

So as for Romney, the last thing America needs is to have another bigot as its President. Eight years of that (under GW Bush) is far more than enough!

So what we have in Mitt Romney is an inconsistent and dishonest dolt who thinks his millions of dollars and his lies can leverage him into the White House. Well -- the really scary part of that is that this formula worked perfectly for the Warmonger-in-Thief who currently and dishonestly occupies that residence.

Suppose Mitt Romney were running for dogcatcher, instead. That wouldn't be good, either.

Then we'd have to have real concern for the well-being of dogs.

Beware of Desperate Republicans! Dirty Tricks are their stock-in-trade!

It's about the only way they can win important elections, and retain power. By conning enough ignorant people to go to the polls for them, lest the common-sense Americans win the day.

I love this commentary which was posted in the Internet, by a gay person, in anonymity (unfortunately... I wish I could give him or her proper credit for it!), to exemplify those tactics:

"To be successful Republicans need some one or something to hate. In the 1950s and ‘60s it was the Communist threat and Communist dupes in the government. In addition, there were "outside agitators" demonstrating for Civil Rights. In the 1980s it was big government and deficit spending, and in the 1990s it was the feminist threat to make everyone use unisex toilets, and birth control by abortion; now it's our turn! We threaten Christianity and the "traditional" family with complete and utter destruction. Look at the bright side. We are now the most powerful group in society! I keep wondering with all of this power how come same-sex marriage is not a fact of life in all the states and territories of the U.S.?

"People complain about negative political advertising. Yet it works to sway voters and win elections. And, [in a rare case of hateful tactics by Democrats], it worked in 1964 when the Johnson campaign used the "Daisy Commercial" to strike fear into the hearts of all human beings that if Goldwater got elected he would unleash an atomic war that would wipe out humanity. Then there was the Willie Horton ad [aired by Republicans] in the 1988 campaign that used race to invoke the same kind of fear. Now it's our turn to become the hated group du jour. There isn't a thing any one can do about it because these kind of attacks are useful to win elections. They always have been and they always will be."

In addition to the points he/she made, above, I also remind everyone of Watergate, the Thanksgiving Day, 2000 intimidation of vote-counters in Palm Beach County by bussed-in THUGS, on the part of Bush's operatives... and the Republicans' "Swift-Boating" of John Kerry in 2004.

The Republican Party, purveyor of the vast majority of such dishonest acts of desperation, is NOT a party for the intellegent and the sensible. As fair-minded and honest progressives, egalitarians need to repudiate, nullify and neutralize these hateful and dishonest tactics AS they surface. Without delay! Before the ignorant can fall for such lies.

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!