My son left his puppy in our back yard early one morning before anyone got up.
He texted this message: Left the puppy. Pet her and stuff.
The rest was rock n roll.
My son left his puppy in our back yard early one morning before anyone got up.
He texted this message: Left the puppy. Pet her and stuff.
The rest was rock n roll.
It starts as soon as we can toddle out of our cribs. It rears its ugly head on playdates and in day care and mother’s day out.
By the time we’ve gotten to first grade, “it” is full-blown and set in concrete.
The “it” I’m referring to is the sad human practice of setting aside a member of our group for isolation which turns neatly into group attacks and shunning. Anytime there are more than two people in a group, one of them is going to be the outsider.
When we allow ourselves to give full vent to our Lord of the Flies side, this ugliness rapidly and inexorably becomes bullying and attacking the ones we’ve singled out. There is almost no low to which people will not sink when it comes to group attacks on the hapless outsider.
That, and not lust, is what leads to outrages such as groups of high school jocks, gang raping the mentally challenged girl. It was behind an incident I remember from my own high school years. Several of the the school football players, (why is it so often athletic teammates?) held down a mentally challenged boy and shaved his head in the school hall.
That incident taught me a lot about people, and what it taught me has proven to be ever-true.
I didn’t know what was happening while it was going on. I rounded the corner to go to my journalism class and found the hall completely blocked by a crowd of students. They were yelling and jeering; shoving and jostling.
My journalism teacher, a smallish young woman, was on the periphery, trying to fight her way to the center of the crowd. She was yelling “Stop!”
No one paid attention to her. At one point, one of the jocks reached out and shoved her back. Meanwhile, our school principal and vice principal, both good-sized men, stepped around the corner, saw what was happening, and turned and walked away.
I didn’t know what was going on until the crowd quieted and broke up. Then, I saw the boy, lying on his side on the tile floor, crying like a broken child.
He was mentally challenged. From what I saw, he spent his days in school alone, drifting through his “education,” by being passed on by teachers who just gave him grades. A few weeks before this happened, he had taken to wearing an odd haircut. Nothing really outlandish, just long and, as was his wont, kind of klutzy.
Now, he was lying there crying, with his head shaved, bits of his hair lying on the floor beside him.
It was a huge school. I don’t know this boy. Didn’t know him then. I have no idea where he is now or if he ever got past this assault and the awful humiliation those jocks visited on him. I never saw him again after that day. For all I know, his parents removed him from the school.
They might as well have because it was clear from the first moment that no one except that one hapless and ultimately helpless female teacher was going to come to his rescue. In fact, what happened afterwards was, even though I didn’t know it at the time, a classic of victim blaming/shaming.
No one reproached the letter guys (what we called the school jocks, named for the “letter” on their athletic jackets) for what they had done. The talk around the school, with the single exception of that one journalism teacher who was outraged, was all about how he “deserved” it, how he’d been “asking for it,” by showing up with that hair cut.
It was a lesson that the girls of the school knew well. Those same football players who had shaved the boy’s head lined up outside the cafeteria every day before lunch. The girls of the school had to walk a gauntlet to get to their food.
Letter boys lined both sides of the hall, leaning back and watching the girls go by. There were catcalls and harassments to swallow before we got to our mashed potatoes and jello salad.
A number of the girls complained about this, in fact they complained several times. But those same male principals who turned around and walked away when the jocks were attacking the boy, also turned studiously deaf ears to requests to bring an end to the line up.
That’s what we called it. “The line up.”
Things are no better today. The bullies and jerks of this world still feel free to isolate and attack with impunity. And the rest of us still take a look, turn and walk the other way.
Cowardice in the face of group censure is as strong in the human psyche as the fear of falling. We human beings are not the fastest or the strongest. We don’t have 3 inch claws or fangs jutting down. At the same time, we are big. We can’t be satisfied with a repast of small prey. We’ve got to go after the big stuff.
God made us, from our beginning, reliant on our wits and on one another. The devil does the rest.
The need in each of us to be liked and accepted, to be part of a sheltering group, quickly becomes a keening wail when it is denied. That’s why blaming the victim is such ubiquitous fiction. Because it shelters the group from taking on the group leader, and in far too many instances, the group leader is the bully on the block.
We don’t just find ourselves by accident as part of groups that are run with ruthless disregard for the weak by the biggest and meanest. We tend to actively chose it.
We do this first by following whoever moves. The male psyche in particular is inclined to follow action of any sort. I’ve spent my working life in the company of groups of men and I’ve seen this dynamic play out many times.
We do it second by feeling threatened ourselves when someone else becomes the group goat. We know, whether we will admit it or not, that the ubiquitous “they” who is leading the attacks on this person, can and will turn and attack us if we try to come to their rescue. Besides, we secretly like seeing people get whittled down to size and put in their place. As they shrink, we feel bigger by comparison.
Victim blaming is nothing more nor less than a form of cohesion building within a group. It is a kind of exemplary discipline meted out not so much to the hapless victim as to the group members who line up and join in the victim blaming/shaming. The message is, get with the program or, next time, it will be you.
The Lord of Flies dynamic is the basic dynamic of human groups. It is the single most potent organizing structure we possess: That of uniting against a common enemy. If there is no common enemy, we create one out of the weakest or the easiest to isolate among us.
The internet, with its anonymity, challenges our need to be part of a group. So we form groups around tiny bits of our personalities, such as a single belief or attitude. Then we begin the process of identifying who we can single out and attack as a group activity.
The Vatican recently called internet bullying “a new form of violence.” In that same discussion, internet bullying was defined as “repeated verbal or psychological harassment carried out by an individual or group.” It includes, “mockery, insults, threats, rumors, gossip, disagreeable comments or slander.”
Does that sound familiar? It should, because one group of people who have been singled out for more than their fair share of this stuff is Christians, in particular Roman Catholics.
I could give you quote after quote, headline after headline, in which, if you replaced Catholic with any other group, the public outrage would be over the top. But not us. We are the new people that it’s fun to hate; the new organizing common enemy of quite a number of internet groups.
The question for us — and it is a question that speaks to our survival — is whether or not we will allow the bullies to cut individuals out of our group and then harry them down to the ground. Are we going to join our attackers when they play blame the victim?
Because if we do that, we might as well hang it up. We are salt that has lost its savor. And we are going down.
ISIS, the Taliban and Boko Haram seem to be in a race for the title of most barbaric terrorist.
Boko Haram specializes in attacking schools and churches and killing, kidnapping, raping and selling children. Four hours ago, Boko Haram attacked a village in Northern Nigeria, killing at least 33 people and kidnapping at least 100 others.
The Taliban attacked a school in Pakistan this week, killing 141 people, most of them children. Now it turns out that ISIS has murdered 150 women and girls for refusing to have sex with them and for refusing to enter into “Jihad marriage” with them.
“Jihad marriage” sounds like another name for rape. So, I guess that makes them mass murderer/rapists. No need to fancy this up with talk about jihad and such.
They’re murderers. They’re rapists. They are satanic. All of them.
There was no way to just deliver this baby and have it die like she wanted. It had to be actively killed. Because, you see, a baby at 28 weeks has every chance of living a long and full life if it is born.
This is how we get the grisly procedures that involve jamming a needle through the mother’s abdomen and into the baby’s heart to administer poison to stop the baby heart from beating. It’s how abortionists came up with such fine things as saline abortions which supposedly burn and poison the baby the death before birth, and d&c abortions which dismember the baby as part of the abortion process and then remove it from the mother, piece by piece. It’s also how the “safe” procedure of partially delivering the baby and then puncturing its skull to drain out its brain before it is fully born came to be.
Note that all of these procedures — each and every one of them — is much harder on the mother than simply delivering the baby alive would be.
The trouble is, once the baby is born, killing it falls within the legal definition of murder. Before it’s born, it is not considered a human being, so killing it is, well, a “right” of both the mother. That is the horror of legal fictions concerning who is — and is not — a human being.
So, this lady decided to kill her baby in its 28th week. Because somebody saw a deformed hand in an ultrasound.
The article I will cite below discusses this murder of an innocent child, giving cultural reasons for why it had to die. Because, you see, even though Mom and Dad live in Australia now, they are from China and they’ve seen Chinese discrimination against the disabled. So, they reasoned, it was best for their baby to die.
This is the logic of abortion in a nutshell. People discriminate against the disabled, so the solution is to kill the disabled. Societies sin against women by, among other things, tolerating violence against women including rape, allowing job discrimination against people with families and children, as well as pregnant women, and many other ways. So, the solution is — you got it — kill the baby.
The logic of abortion is much the same as the logic of euthanasia, as the logic of embryonic stem cell research, as the logic of genocide as the logic of discrimination itself. “These people” (whoever they are) get in the way of “us” (whoever “us” is) so it’s ok to kill them. In fact, it’s a positive good to kill them. In fact, it’s a “right” to kill them.
It benefits all society to cleanse it of them and be done with them. They are a “burden.” They are not human. They are in the way. They bring it on themselves. They are vermin. They are in need of our death-dealing “mercy.”
When an abuse as egregious as killing a baby in its 28th week of life because it has a deformed hand occurs, the “ethicists” jump in to remind us that this is a “complex, difficult and sensitive issue.”
What’s complex about discrimination against the disabled? What’s difficult about firing — or not hiring — a woman because she is pregnant? What’s so sensitive about the fact that women can not walk down the streets of the world and feel safe from sexual assault?
What, pray tell, is the major malfunction in us — not the baby, but us — that our first and only response to our sins of discrimination and violence is to solve the whole thing by killing the innocent?
Did anybody ever think of attacking the discrimination, the prejudice, the violence instead of the baby? I know that working to end discrimination and violence seems like a tougher boogie. It’s not neat and quick like killing.
After all, the murder of an unborn child is done in a clinical situation behind closed doors. The baby body is disposed of, the parents go on, feeling “relieved,” and the medical personnel pick up their paychecks. Job done. Problem over.
Except it’s not. Because the discrimination and violence that set up this nightmare in the first place still remain. We haven’t stopped these horrors. We’ve accommodated them with an even greater horror.
Abortion does not end the evils it claims to address. It cooperates with them and enables them. It increases discrimination and violence to the utter depths of legalized murder. And it degrades whole societies to the level of murderers in the process.
This article is a read-it-and-weep testimony to the brain fog of those who inhabit the world of abortion apologetics. They can’t justify this murder of an innocent child and they will not admit that it is, in fact, murder.
So they trot out the pathos of the parents who killed their baby and the excuse words, “complex, sensitive, difficult.” Then, they ladle on a spoonful of Catholic-bashing like gravy covering over rotten meat.
Perhaps what they’re really saying is that it’s complex, sensitive and difficult to come up with an argument that justifies killing a child because it has a deformed hand.
Photo Credit: href=”https://www.flickr.com/photos/rtdphotography/2972690293/”>RTDotography</a> via <a href=”http://photopin.com”>photopin</aref=”http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/”>cc</a
In an inexplicable bit of terrorist logic, the Taliban attacked a school in Northwest Pakistan yesterday.
Mohammed Khurrassani, a Taliban spokesman, said the murders of these children were in retaliation for Pakistani Army operations which they claim have killed hundreds of Pakistani tribesman.
The Taliban attackers murdered an estimated 132 people, most of them children, and wounded another 122. They made students watch as they burned a teacher alive. It is reported that they beheaded some of the children.
The thinking that goes into specifically attacking a school and slaughtering children as a political statement is beyond me. This sort of thing seems to be happening more and more. In 2004, Islamic militants attacked a school in Beslan Russia and killed 385 people, most of them children.
Boko Haram has made something of a career out of attacking schools and churches. On February 25 of this year, they attacked a Christian boys’ boarding school, killing 29 students. Later in the year, they attacked a girls’ school, kidnapping 200 girls. These girls were forcibly converted to Islam and, according to Boko Haram, then “married,” which I believe means used to concubines, by their fighters. A truce in which the girls were supposed to be returned never happened. In July, they attacked another school, killing 42 people, most of whom were students. Then, on November 10, Boko Haram attacked yet another school, killing 47 and wounding 79.
We’ve been hearing for years about the big, brave men who throw acid in school girl’s faces. And now it seems the world is going to be treated to an increasing number of attacks on schools and school children.
This is organized barbarity. It is also cowardice. I don’t know what they teach people in the Taliban, ISIS and Boko Haram, but real men don’t murder, kidnap, rape school children.
I think it’s much greater than that. Employers are missing a bet by punishing both mothers and fathers for putting their families first. Not only are they aiding in the destruction of our society, but they are cheating themselves out of employees who are the kind of people who can and do commit and go the distance.
Giving motherhood the respect it deserves is a much needed antidote for the the sins of this world. The video below describes a movement that began in Italy which seeks to do just that. This movement and those like it are an important step in the right direction.
The evil of abortion — and through it a plethora of life-destroying movements — found traction in the public imagination precisely because child bearing and motherhood had been used as a means to justify discrimination against women and to limit their lives.
Women don’t need the “right” to kill their own children. They need respect and support for motherhood. No woman should be forced to chose between a murdered child and a ruined life. I believe this so passionately that I’m currently writing a whole book about it.
I thank you Father … that you have hidden these things from the wise and the learned, and revealed them to the little ones.
“CCChristian people, I am come hither to die for the faith of Christ’s holy catholic church; and, I thank God, hitherto my stomach hath served me very well thereunto, so that yet I have not feared death; wherefore I desire you all to help and assist with your prayers, that, at the very point and instant of death’s stroke, I may in that very moment stand steadfast without fainting in any one point of the catholic faith, free from any fear. And I beseech Almighty God of his infinite goodness to save the king and this realm, and that it may please him to hold his holy hand over it, and send the king a good council.”
St John Fisher, at his execution
God’s warriors have always been the most unlikely people.
He sent Moses who stuttered to speak to Pharaoh and Gideon who was a coward to fight a war. He chose Deborah — a woman in an ancient middle-eastern country — as commander in chief during another war, and He was Himself born in a manger and raised by a carpenter.
God likes the little people, the unlikely people. Jesus’ disciples, who would ultimately change the world, were fishermen and disreputable tax collectors and such.
Jesus Himself once thanked His Father for revealing the truth of the Kingdom to the “little ones.”
We see this lived out in our world every single day. How often do we see the powerful and puffed up professional followers of Christ who have done quite well for themselves, thank you very much, cut and run when trouble comes? How often do we see those who claim that they speak for God and we must honor and respect them for that reason, collude with the world and do its bidding rather than Our Lord’s?
The leadership in a good many of our Catholic universities is a case in point. Many of these universities are institutions that were built by priests, jesuits in particular, and which are still headed by priests.
Education has become a primary means of brainwashing young people into turning their back on Christ. This is a magnificent opportunity for those who run our Catholic universities to make a positive difference for the Kingdom. They could, if they were committed to Christ themselves, make their institutions a primary means of converting the culture.
Instead, many of them have chosen to convert their schools to fit the culture. When push comes to shove, as it has with the HHS Mandate, they bend the knee and kiss Ceasar’s ring without embarrassment. And they continue to wear the Roman collar while they are doing it.
As I said, in another post, enter the Little Sisters of the Poor, stage left. The sisters are, as Jesus said, “little ones.” The word “little” is even in their name. They were, before they decided to make a courtroom stand for Christ, almost anonymous. Their work isn’t the kind of thing that allows them to hobnob with presidents and kings. They spend their days caring for the least of these, for the very people that a good many in our society are pushing to euthanize for their costliness and the massive inconvenience they create. The Little Sister of the Poor care for the frail elderly,
The Little Sisters fit Jesus’ description of “the little ones” pretty well. They serve a Church which is administered by men who do sit down to sup with presidents and kings and many of whom have clearly forgotten that they are servants, not masters.
One of Public Catholic’s readers inspired this post with the comment that they wished the Little Sisters of the Poor would be more like the priests of Notre Dame and just do what the government tells them to do: Accept the HHS Mandate and follow the government instead of Christ.
The reader didn’t put that last bit about following the government instead of Christ in there. That was all me. But I honestly think it reflects the choice that the leadership at many of our Catholic universities have made, and not just in the HHS Mandate.
What the reader was saying, of course, is that they preferred Christians who follow the world rather than Christ; they like cowardly Christian leadership that will lead their people into betraying Our Lord so that the Church becomes a meaningless cypher in today’s world. This reader — and I imagine a good many other people — prefers the priests of Notre Dame to the Little Sisters of the Poor precisely because the priests are so willing to sell out Jesus and the Little Sisters are, however reluctantly, willing to fight for Him.
I wonder if this embarrasses these priests at all. I would take a look at myself if those who have as their outspoken goal the destruction of religion in general and Christianity in particular praised me for not following the Church. Do they consider, even for a moment, the implications in this?
These are difficult times, and difficult times are when the sunshine soldiers who joined to participate in the parades and fanfare lay down their arms and cross over to what looks like the winning side. How many of the English bishops acceded to Henry VIII? I know of one. Cardinal John Fisher was martyred for his faith and is now Saint John Fisher.
I’ve read letters from the bishops, encouraging the laity to consider St Thomas More when thinking about the HHS Mandate. St Thomas More is special to me. When I was in the process of converting, I thought about him a lot. I’ve always thought that he was there with me, aiding me in that time. St Thomas More is my namesake. During my years in office I wore his medal, all day, every day.
St Thomas More refused to repudiate the Church at the King’s command. St Thomas is precious to me because he had many failings and he did not want to die. He was not aiming for sainthood. He tried his best to live, to avoid his martyrdom. But in the end, when the choice of Christ or King was put before him, he chose Christ.
St Thomas More is a marvelous example, especially for politicians, writers and attorneys. St John Fisher is an equally important example for priests and bishops. I wish there was a St John Fisher Society to promote sacrificial followership among priests and bishops. I wish they could find fellowship and strength in one another. It is not easy to lead people in these times. It takes consistency and courage.
Leadership in the name of Christ is always servant leadership. It is a giving of oneself, rather than a getting for oneself. The people of God are hungry for leadership. Even most of those who criticize and try to bully the Church into acceding to the world would respond to leadership if they saw it. In fact, a good many of these people behave this way because they don’t have leadership. They are, as Jesus put it, like sheep without a shepherd.
The single best way to lead is by example, by inspiration. Do you want people to stand for Christ? Then stand for Christ yourself. Do you want people to sacrifice for Jesus because He is worth any sacrifice? Then, sacrifice yourself. The Church is built on the blood of the martyrs, not the crisp linens and fine serving ware of dining with presidents and kings.
The prominent priests of Notre Dame are a fine example of how not to do priestly leadership. Being the big dog and aping the world are not examples of servant leadership or even Christly leadership. They are examples of betrayal.
I thank You Father … that you have … revealed these things to the little ones.
Enter the Little Sisters of the Poor, stage left.
It seems I’ve run afoul of the atheist portal here at Patheos One. More. Time.
Nobody sticks in these folks’ collective craw more than I do. They love to hate me and they love to trash me. If one of them was slowly slipping away, I think the doc could show them one of my blog posts to get their poor little heart started beating again.
I’m not sure how I do it, and to be honest, I don’t care, but I do get under their skin. They react to me the way Tribbles react to Klingons.
I’ve studiously ignored this carrying on up to now, and I intend to go back to that same path as soon as I finish here. But I do have a small bone to pick with one of the more outlandish claims against me that has been published on that portal.
Dan Arel, who blogs at Danthropology, has a big case of outrage going over my recent blog post about the Prez. It seems that calling President Obama an idiot is a bridge too far for Mr Arel. That’s his opinion, and he’s welcome to it. Writing blog posts trying to get at me is also his call. It actually would be difficult for me to come up with a description of how little I care.
I’m not even all that exercised about the one point that I’m going to discuss here. I just think it leads into an important point that needs making.
In his outraged defense of the president, Mr Arel — as atheists seem wont to do — veers off into personal attacks against me. As often happens with personal attacks against me, he immediately goes into fantasyland and presents made-up nonsense as fact.
This paragraph is a case in point (emphasis mine):
Rebecca Hamilton is a former politician who spent her career attacking women’s rights. Now it seems in retirement, her life will be no different. She does not think women are able to make the choices that are right for them and instead wants the President to give her and her religion the privilege of making these choices for you.
Oh me. Oh my. Such a big fat lie.
Here’s just a sprinkling of things I’ve done (This is just off the top of my head. I’m sure there’s more.) during my career-long “attack” on women’s rights:
1. One of 6 founders of the first rape crisis center in Oklahoma.
2. Got first funding for statewide domestic violence shelters.
3. Author of the original protective order in Oklahoma.
4. Creator of the first statewide rape hot line in Oklahoma.
5. Authored legislation to allow rape victims and victims of domestic violence time off work for counseling, court visits, medical care without losing their employment.
6. Authored legislation to provide state funding for day care.
7. Authored legislation to make human trafficking illegal in Oklahoma.
8. Passed a law to keep rape victims’ information private.
9. Host and co-creator of the Oklahoma Day of Prayer for an End to Violence Against Women.
10. Authored bill to stop doctors from paying women to allow their bodies to be harvested for eggs.
11. Authored bill to stop forced abortions.
12. Authored bill making it a felony to beat up a pregnant woman.
13. Authored bill outlawing female genital mutilation in Oklahoma.
14. Authored bill to make rape by instrumentation a crime in Oklahoma.
Lessee now. What might I have done that could possibly be construed as “attacking women’s rights?????”
Tap, tap, tap …
Could it be the fact that I oppose abortion?
That’s all I can think of. And it does fit.
Because in some people’s minds, “women’s rights” is abortion. They think that if you aren’t in favor of abortion on demand, then you must be opposed to “women’s rights.” On the other hand, they think that if you favor abortion on demand, then that’s all there is to women’s rights.
Oddly enough, even in this, Mr Arel’s hateful hyperbole overreaches the facts by a few miles. I opposed abortion in the second half of my career. During the first, pre-conversion half, I was the pro choice poster girl of Oklahoma. I’ve got enough Margaret Sanger awards and other pro choice attagirls from that phase of my life to paper the walls of my house with them. I was the de facto go-to person in the Oklahoma legislature for those who wanted pro life bills killed dead. And I delivered, because I was, as one of my fellow House members told me, “one hell of a legislator.”
Before I was ever elected to office, I was the Oklahoma director for NARAL.
So puhllleeeezzzz Mr Arel, consider who you are tarring with your abortion-is-women’s-rights brush. I know more about this issue — from both sides — than you will ever learn.
One of the things I know, and that I have learned to my horror and grief, is that abortion kills a living child. I can’t tell you how devastated I was when I realized the full horror of what I had done during my anti-God years.
Not only was I shattered by my own crimes against humanity, but as a woman who cares deeply about women’s rights, I felt trapped in a conundrum. How could I work to ensure women’s rights and prevail in my life-long work to speak out for justice for womankind and still protect these unborn children’s lives? That was the question.
I found the answer in the place where we all must look: The abundant mercy and love of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Jesus is Lord of every life, whether the person acknowledges this or not. He loves Mr Arel just as much as He loves me, or you. He loves him and wants to offer him forgiveness and the free gift of eternal life just as He loves and cherishes the unborn child.
We are all His brothers and sisters, all God’s children.
Jesus loves women with a special depth of love because He is the author of life and women are the bearers of life. We are His cooperators in the life force. He chose to be born of a woman Himself.
This does not mean that God intends His daughters to be limited to that one single role. We are not walking uteri. We are human beings, made in His image with all the hungers, desires and needs for significance, achievement and the fullness of life that men have. Diminishing us to the role of childbearing as if that was all there is to us is not God’s plan. It is the devil’s curse on humankind.
Misogyny is the human race, at war with itself. And abortion, which strips women of their uniqueness, is an attack on women’s humanity at a profound level. Women should not have to chose between a murdered child and a ruined life. That, and not some nebulous “right” to murder both their own child and their own maternity is what women’s rights should be.
Pregancy and childbirth should never be used as a weapon to terrorize women or limit their lives. Rather than ending this discrimination and misogyny, abortion cooperates with it. Abortion is just the old misogynist double standard, turned sideways. It puts the whole burden of human sexuality back on the woman once again.
I don’t blame Mr Arel for being such a twerp about all this. He is, after all, both a man and an atheist, which is a combination that, based on my reading, seems to struggle with ideas of women’s rights based on women’s humanity. In fact, this group seems to struggle with ideas of intrinsic and universal human rights for any group of people. Based on things he’s said and done, I would guess that he’s also got a special hate going toward me.
All that adds up to a king-sized pair of blinders. When he puts forth the women’s rights = abortion equation, he is repeating the mindless cant he’s been taught around who knows how many intellectual campfires.
What I would like him to do is to take those blinders off, or at least peek around them, and see the love and compassion that Our Lord extends to him. Mr Arel is wrong about abortion, wrong about God and, in a far lesser question, wrong about me.
I wish him the best thing I could wish anyone, that he accepts the love of Christ and begins the journey to heaven. Whether he knows it, or wants to believe it or not, he is my brother; my lost and angry brother.
I pray for you Dan. You are a child of the living God.
Now, I’m back to ignoring the atheist portal.
I don’t know that I’ve ever used a title that provoked such comment as when I put “President Obama is an Idiot” at the top of a post about his idiotic lawsuit against the Little Sisters of the Poor.
I’ve been huzzahed and tsk, tsked, accused of being a racist and told that I really need to learn how to address my betters. I’ve gotten the full blast of self-righteous, sanctimonious how could you say that??? from people who engage in vendettas, personal attacks, character assassination and name calling as their ordinary means of discussion.
It was one of the most obvious cases of pot and kettle disowning projection I’ve witnessed in my young life. And I spent 18 years in the Oklahoma House of Representatives.
To be honest, it reminded me of Aunt Pitty Pat, reaching for her smelling salts.
All this approbation and excoriation seems to fall (surprise!) along party and ideological lines. If, say, I had written a post called W an idiot, I rather imagine the applauders and the outraged would have switched sides.
The one point of attack that had validity was the simple one based on the fact that I so often call other people down for name calling. I’ve made a big point of not allowing name-calling on this blog, and then here I go, calling someone an “Idiot” in a title. What gives?
I made an exception to my own rule in the case of our president going to court with the Little Sisters of the Poor because any politician, much less the president of the United States, who would do such a totally idiotic thing, is, well, behaving like a political idiot.
From the viewpoint of governance, politics, justice, proportion and common sense going forward with this lawsuit is idiotic.
We are talking about the president of the United States. This is the man who has told us that he’s “got a phone and pen” and he can pretty much govern as a reigning elected monarch from the Oval Office. Congress, (speaking of idiots) to this man is a cypher. He’s the Prez; he’s cool and he rules.
We are discussing the man who has his finger on the nuclear button. He can, with a whim, kill every single thing on this planet. He can melt the mountains down to glass, burn the forests to ash, boil the oceans dry and leave this sweet blue globe a smoking cinder.
He can order troops into any corner of the planet, send the bombers and reduce any city, any nation, any spot to rubble in a matter of hours.
And he’s decided to go mano y mano with the Little Sisters of the Poor.
I said he was an idiot for doing this. I kind of regret that. I think it was too mild.
How stupid does a politician have to be to get into a fight with a bunch of elderly nuns who don’t want to be involved in supplying contraceptives and abortifacients? He’s the most powerful man in the world and he’s maneuvered himself into a lose/lose fight with, of all people, The Little Sisters of the Poor?
Idiot? Oh yeah.
Because, you see, all this power that President Obama wields, every single smidge of it, comes from we the people. We put him in power.
When the day comes that an American cannot call a president — any president — an idiot, then we’re in big trouble. That’s what we do in this country, and it’s a fine thing. President Obama may be able to melt the mountains down to glass and legislate with his mighty pen. But he’s still a sitting duck for we the people and our right to whittle him down to normal-sized anytime we chose.
So far as I can remember, every president I’ve ever lived under has been called an idiot by somebody. Also, every president I can remember has been called a Communist. And most of them were likened to the Anti-Christ. Is President Obama more disrespected than other presidents? I don’t think so.
I’m old enough to remember thousands of people marching in the streets chanting Hey, Hey LBJ, How Many Kids Did You Kill Today?
I remember Richard Nixon, otherwise known as Tricky Dicky.
And President Clinton, who was Slick Willy.
I’m not old enough to remember Franklin Roosevelt, who was a “traitor to his class,” Thomas Jefferson who was a “destroyer of civil liberties,” or Andrew Jackson who was a “whoremonger.”
I don’t like name-calling, and I do not usually allow it on this blog. But, I would defend without reservation the right of any American to call their president one of these names and a whole lot worse.
President Obama is the Prez. Being called an idiot isn’t specifically named in the Constitution as part of his job description, but the set-up for it is right there at the top of the list in the Bill of Rights. First rattle out of the box, we were given the right to have our say, petition our government, engage in free assembly and (enter the Little Sisters of the Poor, stage left) freely exercise our religious beliefs without government interference.
That’s what has made us who we are. It is who we are.
I was in Taiwan a few years ago with a group of Americans and a high-ranking Taiwanese guide. The Taiwanese man shepherded groups of people from many nations through Taiwan on official visits. Our little group was hard to keep corralled. We kept going off on our own in different directions. At one point, when our guide was particularly exasperated because of this, I said, “I suppose this happens with every group.”
“No,” he answered, “just Americans.”
That’s us. That’s us right down to the ground. We’re so accustomed to doing whatever we want, going wherever we please, saying whatever we think that we stand out among groups from many nations in this regard.
I hope and pray that never changes.
Dr Nareshkumar Patel, Oklahoma City abortionist, was arrested yesterday for committing fraud against his patients.
Oklahoma’s Attorney General’s office conducted a sting on Dr Patel in which female law enforcement officers were examined by Dr Patel with an ultrasound, as well as a pregnancy test. Despite the fact that none of these women were pregnant, Dr Patel allegedly told the women they were in the early stages of pregnancy and prescribed abortion pills for them. According to news sources, he charged them $620 for these “services.”
Dr Patel bonded out of jail after he was arrested yesterday. He has had several run-ins with the law already. He was the center of a notorious scandal in 1992 in which he placed the bodies of babies he had aborted in a trash bag and set them on fire in a field. He was charged with raping his patients 1993.
The abortion-inducing drug that Dr Patel is alleged to have prescribed for women who were not pregnant is RU-486. RU-486 was a chemotherapy drug used to treat cancer before it began to be used to cause abortions. The most common side effects include, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, cramping, uterine hemorrhage, fever, chills with shaking, endometritis, fainting and pelvic pain. A number of women, both in the United States and overseas, have died as a result of taking RU-486.
Dr Patel is not alone among his fellow Oklahoma abortionists in being charged with serious crimes.
Dr Joe Bills Reynolds, who opened the first abortion clinic in Oklahoma and who performed abortions for decades, was charged with the surgery-related murder of his wife. He was subsequently convicted of manslaughter.
Dr John Hamilton, who operated an abortion clinic in northwest Oklahoma City, was convicted of the brutal murder of his wife, Susan Hamilton. Mrs Hamilton, who worked in the abortion clinic with her husband, was bludgeoned to death on Valentine’s Day, 2001. He is currently serving a life sentence for this crime.
Oklahoma is a small state. Our population is just a bit over 3 million. We don’t have a pa-zillion abortion doctors floating around. In fact, so far as I know, every doctor who has run an abortion clinic in Oklahoma City (the largest metropolitan area in the state) has ended up behind bars for the abuse or death of a woman. Dr Patel managed to get out of the earlier charges against him. But his two cohorts were both convicted.
Is Oklahoma unusual in having so many jailbird abortionists? I don’t think so. Aside from Dr Kermit Gosnell, who stands out as the Mengele of abortionists, other jailbird abortionists come to mind. Consider Georgia-based abortionist Tyrone Malloy, who was convicted of Medicaid fraud, or Dr Robert Alexander, whose Muskegon, Michigan abortion clinic was shut down by the Fire Marshall for “filthy conditions.” You might also give a thought to another Georgia abortionist, Charles Rossman, who is serving a ten year sentence for abandoning a patient during a late-term abortion; Arizona abortionist John Biskind, who was convicted of manslaughter when he left LouAnne Herron to bleed to death after puncturing her uterus during an abortion, Florida abortionist Pravin Thakker, who was convicted of performing abortions on his former lovers without their consent.
I could go on, but I think this makes the point. In truth, there are a plethora of scuzzy abortionists out there, plying their grisly trade and literally getting away with all manner of crimes against women in the process. They are protected and abetted in this by the so-called “pro choice” movement that treats any safety standards regarding abortion clinics as an attack on “choice” and thus on “women’s health.”
Oklahoma is just one among the many states with jailbird abortionists. It’s all part of the pro choice perp walk.
Dr Anthony Levatino is an Ob-Gyn who, earlier in his career, performed 1200 elective abortions, including 200 second trimester abortions.
He has converted from being an abortionist to being pro life. His commitment to life has led him to the brave act of stepping forward and speaking out about his own actions in order to educate people about abortion.
This is very important. One reason lawmakers are so easily confused and bamboozled on this issue is that they do not understand what abortion is or what it entails. Lawmakers — as well as much of the general public — seem to think that abortion is some sort of magical rewind which just poof! makes women unpregnant. They seem to think that abortion is an undoing of events that renders the baby nonexistent.
That fantasy gives those who promote abortion and who attack pro life legislation the opening they need. For instance, pro abortionists oppose laws that require doctors to give women the option of seeing their baby on an ultrasound before the abortion. They claim that, since the laws often require a transvaginal ultrasound, that this is “rape by instrumentation.”
Dr Levatino’s testimony makes a hash of this nonsense by the simple means of describing in detail what happens during an abortion.
That particular lie of calling an ultrasound rape by instrumentation infuriates me more than most because I was the author of Oklahoma’s law making rape by instrumentation a crime. Before I passed that law, rape by instrumentation was not illegal except as simple assault in Oklahoma. I was the one who made this horrifically damaging barbarity that is sometimes done to rape victims a form of sexual assault and who allowed law enforcement to send those who do it to prison.
Then, later, I was confronted with people that I regarded as absolute fools, claiming that an ultrasound was the same thing as rape by instrumentation. There were only a couple of things that happened to me in all my years in office that offended me as deeply as this did.
I kept asking people Don’t you know what abortion is? Do you have any idea how abortions are performed?
The public and legislative ignorance allowed them to think that abortion was an ez pz deal in which the doctor more or less waves a wand and the woman is unpregnant. In truth, surgical abortion is an invasive and painful surgical procedure, that is performed these days with an ultrasound to guide the doctor as he dismembers the baby. If people actually believe that an ultrasound is the same as rape by instrumentation, I have no idea what they might consider a full-on abortion to be.
Dr Levatino’s testimony exposes those kinds of lies about abortion for the fantastical nonsense that they are. It also makes clear that each abortion kills a living child. He addresses a third issue which has been worn thin. That is the lie that late-term abortions are necessary to preserve women’s health and save their lives.
He says what I’ve been saying all along: There is no medical reason for a late-term abortion. It would be far safer for the woman to just deliver the baby than to do an abortion.
I’m grateful to Dr levatino for his courage in giving this testimony. He could have chosen to sweep his past under the rug and go on about his life. He could have stayed silent. What he did instead was speak for life in the way that only those who have previously spoken and acted for death can do. He can tell us the stark truth about abortion.
Dr Levatino gave the testimony in this video quite a while back, but it is still well worth the watch.