The major problem with the current media trend toward providing Republican sponsored sound bites, so called news cycles, is that we are never allowed to go back to see if a prediction or observation was made that actually happened to play out.  The media inclination to "stay in the moment" does not serve the public, but serves political and corporate agendas.  Thank God for the internet, where information is allowed to live over profit.  I can remind you of something and not be told, "No, Jim.  It's just not profitable.  It's time to move on."

In a commentary that I wrote for Online Journal back in the middle of December (You ain't seen nothin' yet, 12/16/2000); back before the emperor of thieves was ingratiated as resident of the White House, I concluded with the following three paragraphs.  Ask yourself if it doesn't sound a little familiar.

"Republicans have held up at least 60 percent of President Clinton's judicial appointments, refusing to even submit his appointments to Senate votes.  The plain purpose is to save those appointments for the next Republican president, where choices will be made from the cookie cutter workshop of the Federalist Society.  This society of ultra conservative lawyers and judges strives toward reinterpreting the Constitution of the United States of America in favor of financial interests.  While Democrats wring their hands, fearing that such judges will overturn Roe v. Wade, the real threat is much darker and deeper.

The Federalist Society seeks to reinterpret the constitution to remove federal regulations regarding worker safety and pollution control, to eliminate civil rights legislation, and to upend the 'taking clause' of the constitution to eliminate zoning, causing economic windfalls for property owners.

The Republican promise surrounding control of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government is simple.  If you think that there is a great chasm between the rich and the poor, that too few control too much of the wealth, that our environment is in danger, and individual rights are being eroded-you ain't seen nothin' yet!"

I bring this up because you are watching as this prediction comes to life.  The Bushies have put the American citizens on notice that the executive office will no longer seek the guidance of the American Bar Association in recommendations for the federal judiciary.  The reason cited by those close to the resident is that the ABA is a "liberal" organization.  In this instance, the word "liberal" should be viewed in the same context as the "liberal" press.

Instead, recommendations will be sought from the Federalist Society, who hail as members the likes of Kenneth Starr, John Ashcroft, Gale Norton, and Spencer Abraham.  John Ashcroft sits as Attorney General today because Montana Gov. Marc Racicot (the most vocal of Republican advocates to dispense with counting the votes in Florida) was viewed as too liberal by these legal minds of the neo-fascist right.  It's not that Racicot wasn't loud and clear in his advocacy towards ending legal abortions and forcing religious instruction into our schools, he just wasn't strident enough.

The funding for these judicial brown shirts comes from a variety of extreme right wing sources, not the least of which is¯you've heard this name before¯Richard M. Scaife.  As Grover Norquist, an ultra conservative activist admits, "If Hillary Clinton had wanted to put some meat on her charge of a 'vast right-wing conspiracy,' she should have had a list of Federalist Society members and she could have spun a more convincing story."

What does this society want?  Well, it's primary objectives are the following:

1. An end to affirmative action.  After all, even Clarence Thomas learned that he could go much farther in life by selling his soul, than by having the government make sure that he wasn't discriminated against in education or the work place.

2. Perversion of the "takings" clause of the Constitution's 5th Amendment.  You know¯the one that says, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."  They want to use this phrase to justify overturning everything from municipal zoning, to environmental laws, to worker's compensation.

3. An end to workplace anti-harassment laws.  After all, if your boss is constantly pressuring you to sleep with him, he's only exercising his own free speech.

4. An end to punitive damages because it is "a capricious, unpredictable, randomly destructive scheme of punishment."  Besides, it does silly things like encourage lawyers to assert the rights of the poor, and makes corporations think twice before purposely putting lethally defective products on the open market.

5. An end to all civil rights legislation over the past 40 years.  "If you don't want to allow 'those people' at your school, your business, or sitting at the front of your bus, you shouldn't have to let them."  Trust me on this, disenfranchisement in Florida and Tennessee is just the first step back down the long spiral staircase toward the nether regions.

6. Shredding privacy rights because under the "orignalist theory" of constitutional law, the founding fathers never actually used the word privacy.  If police had the power to do body cavity searches on demand, think what a dent that would put in crime statistics.  It's for the common good, so don't complain if, one day, your daughter comes home from school crying.  You can be pretty sure that the school is "drug free."

And yes, the right to privacy is that little issue upon which Roe v. Wade makes its home.  Roe v. Wade recognizes that the government has no right to interfere with the private consultations between a woman and her doctor.

While in law school, one of my favorite professors had an interesting take on Roe v. Wade.  He maintained that if you read the decision carefully, and I think he's right, that one can find genuine concern, on the part of the concurring justices, that if the government has the right to prevent an abortion, the government may also have the right to demand an abortion.

"Oh, that's just silly," I can hear you say.  "That's just right out of Nazi Germany, and if the right-to-lifers are doing everything they can to prevent individuals from having an abortion, they'll institute and armed rebellion if the government demands one."

Uh, huh.  Well consider this*  You'd have to say that Pat Robertson (leader of the Christian Coalition) is a pretty staunch anti-abortion person, wouldn't you?  Well, you'd only be partly right.  Pat is only against abortion when it is the choice of the individual.  During a recent interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN, Pat said of China's policy of prescribing abortions for women who had already had more than one child, that the Chinese are "doing what they have to do" to curb population growth.  He does not believe that the policy should be interfered with.  So you can see his standard.  As an individual choice, abortion is wrong, but it's okay for the state to demand it if it is doing what it has to do for the greater good.  I guess it would be up to the likes of Pat and his ilk to decide what that greater good should be.

Up to this point, parents in China have been permitted to determine which births will be aborted.  Because of the cultural preference for boys over girls, families have most frequently chosen to abort female fetuses upon the second pregnancy if their first child was a girl.  That permits them to keep trying for a boy.  Pat does think that the parent's folly in this instance is a mistake as well, and feels that the government might step in on that issue.  Pat feels that by having so few girls, China may find that it doesn't have enough women, and will have to import them.  This, he said, "will, in a sense, dilute the¯what they consider the racial purity of the Han Chinese."  Ah, the very important "racial purity" issue.

You're right!  It is all something out of Nazi Germany.  While I used to be one of the people who proclaimed it couldn't happen here, I don't say that anymore.  If your congressional representatives haven't anything better to do with their time, you might ask them to take a very close look at the candidates that Bush nominates to federal judgeships.  Most likely, all nominees will be soulless clones from the Federalist Society.

I am breathless with amazement.
While I once felt that I was fairly moderate in my political beliefs as a mainstream Democrat,
I am now told repeatedly by the "liberal press" that I am a member of the lunatic fringe.
Members of the Federalist Society, Pat Robertson, and Freepers are all smack dab in the mainstream.

Stand aside, Alice!
A whole continent is coming through the looking glass.