I wrote the following prior to the last election, noting Ted Kennedy's unfounded prescience on what would become "Robert Bork's America":
John Kerry's America
At the Senate Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Judge Robert Bork in 1991, Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts made the following alarmist statement:
"Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, robed police could break down citizen's doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about Evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of the government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy."
The Bork hearings, one may recall, were made a public spectacle on broadcast television a la Watergate, and he was not confirmed by the Senate.
If Kennedy's "vision" of the future is fair, then how might one envision the future under the leadership of John Kerry?
John Kerry's America would be one in which a million or more healthy babies continue to be slaughtered each year for women's rights, population control, and personal convenience.
Official discrimination favoring only select minorities will increase in the name of Affirmative Action and "Diversity."
Following the lead of Sweden and other socialist countries, Christians and others who dare speak against homosexual marriage, abortion, and other approved causes will be tried for hate crimes, and religious institutions raided in the manner of the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas.
Schoolchildren will continue to be taught Evolution as established fact, and the mere mention of Creationism excluded from the classroom.
Reforms made to the National Endowment to the Arts will be undone, and so-called artists like Annie Sprinkle will be funded by the government.
Supreme Court justices William Renquist, Sandra Day O'Connor, and perhaps others, not to mention other federal judges, will retire and be replaced with liberal activist judges who will continue to undermine the fabric of American society, and purge from it all Christian influence.
The United States would look to the United Nations for permission to defend itself, and increasingly serve in the UN's causes at the expense of American taxpayers and American lives.
Finally, taxes and social spending would rise, while funding for defense and intelligence would, as Kerry's past voting record ably demonstrates, be gutted.
John Kerry is Ted Kennedy's choice for president. The choice in 2004 is not between personalities but two very different visions for the future of the United States of America. It is a clear moral choice. Undecided voters who continue to "waffle" between poll results must either be negligently ignorant of the facts, or totally lacking in guiding principles.
Copyright 2004 Paul A. Hughes
Now the retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor has transpired, so we are in for a renewed skirmish in the "cultural wars." Ted Kennedy has already declared his opposition to any non-liberal nominee to the Supreme Court. Any nominee must brace him/herself for the same kind of rectal examination accorded Bork and Clarence Thomas.
With Thomas, there was no evidence of wrongdoing, only hearsay FBI interviews illegally "leaked" by a Democrat senator's office. I well recall Sam Nunn and (I think) Chris Dodd (or some other partisan) telling the press that in spite of lack of evidence, they must question Thomas's nomination "because of the seriousness of the charges. In short, Democrats have already proven that in the absence of evidence, they are willing enough to create some.
Copyright 2005 Paul A. Hughes