Race Baiting


Race baiting; when someone proclaims Black Lives Matter for example, and your initial response is All Lives Matter and you believe there is only one race, the human race then then you think that saying Black Lives Matter is race baiting. But we human beings cannot interact with each other as one dimensional beings. We are more than just one race; we are individual people with ethnic, cultural, religious, geographical, societal, governmental, educational and many other differences between us as people, as a culture, as a religion, as a community; a town; a city; a state; a nation, as a society, as a governmental system, in educational opportunity’s and many other aspects of life. It is the richness of mental stimulation, the awe and inspiration of the world around us, the sheer joy of human sexual and emotional intimacy, personal satisfaction and fulfillment. But it is also the horror of human cruelty, the despair of oppression, the hatred and in humanity with which we treat one another.
Race baiting; if you hear me saying Black Lives Matter and your response is All Lives Matter and you think I am race baiting think about which way you are looking at it; not which way I am meaning it.

An Eyeopener…..I, Racist


This was posted on Facebook by a very dear friend of mine. Left me in tears, speechless and as a white woman feeling a responsibility to try to share this with as many people as I possibly can.

 

What follows is the text of a “sermon” that I gave as a “congregational reflection” to an all White audience at the Bethel Congregational United Church of Christ on Sunday, June 28th. The sermon was begun with a reading of The Good Samaritan story, and this wonderful quote from Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s Americanah.

Credit for this speech goes to Chaédria LaBouvier, whose “Why We Left” inspired me to speak out about racism; to Robin DiAngelo, whose “White Fragility” gave me an understanding of the topic; and to Reni Eddo-Lodge who said “Why I’m no longer talking to white people about race” long before I had the courage to start doing it again.


couple weeks ago, I was debating what I was going to talk about in this sermon. I told Pastor Kelly Ryan I had great reservations talking about the one topic that I think about every single day.

Then, a terrorist massacred nine innocent people in a church that I went to, in a city that I still think of as home. At that point, I knew that despite any misgivings, I needed to talk about race.

You see, I don’t talk about race with White people.


To illustrate why, I’ll tell a story:

It was probably about 15 years ago when a conversation took place between my aunt, who is White and lives in New York State, and my sister, who is Black and lives in North Carolina. This conversation can be distilled to a single sentence, said by my Black sister:

“The only difference between people in the North and people in the South
is that down here, at least people are honest about being racist.”

There was a lot more to that conversation, obviously, but I suggest that it can be distilled into that one sentence because it has been, by my White aunt. Over a decade later, this sentence is still what she talks about. It has become the single most important aspect of my aunt’s relationship with my Black family. She is still hurt by the suggestion that people in New York, that she, a northerner, a liberal, a good person who has Black family members, is a racist.

This perfectly illustrates why I don’t talk about race with White people. Even — or rather, especially — my own family.


love my aunt. She’s actually my favorite aunt, and believe me,
I have a lot of awesome aunts
to choose from. But the facts
are actually quite in my sister’s favor on this one.

New York State is one of the most segregated states in the country. Buffalo, New York, where my aunt lives, is one of the 10 most segregated school systems in the country. The racial inequality of the area she inhabits is so bad that it has been the subject of reports by the Civil Rights Action Network and the NAACP.

Those, however, are facts that my aunt does not need to know. She does
not need to live with the racial segregation and oppression of her home.
As a white person with upward mobility, she has continued to improve
her situation. She moved out of the area I grew up in– she moved to an
area with better schools. She doesn’t have to experience racism, and so
it is not real to her.

Nor does it dawn on her that the very fact that she moved away from an increasingly Black neighborhood to live in a White suburb might itself be a aspect of racism. She doesn’t need to realize that “better schools” exclusively means “whiter schools.”

I don’t talk about race with White people because I have so often seen it go nowhere. When I was younger, I thought it was because all white people are racist. Recently, I’ve begun to understand that it’s more nuanced than that.


understand, you have to know
that Black people think in terms
of Black people.

We don’t see a shooting of an innocent Black child in another state as something separate from us because we know viscerally that it could be our child, our parent, or us, that is shot.

The shooting of Walter Scott in North Charleston resonated with me because Walter Scott was portrayed in the media as a deadbeat and a criminal — but when you look at the facts about the actual man, he was nearly indistinguishable from my own father.

Racism affects us directly because the fact that it happened at a geographically remote location or to another Black person is only a coincidence, an accident. It could just as easily happen to us — right here, right now.

Black people think in terms of we because we live in a society where the social and political structures interact with us as Black people.

White people do not think in terms of we. White people have the privilege to interact with the social and political structures of our society as individuals. You are “you,” I am “one of them.” Whites are often not directly affected by racial oppression even in their own community, so what does not affect them locally has little chance of affecting them regionally or nationally. They have no need, nor often any real desire, to think in terms of a group. They are supported by the system, and so are mostly unaffected by it.

What they are affected by are attacks on their own character. To my aunt, the suggestion that “people in The North are racist” is an attack on her as a racist. She is unable to differentiate her participation within a racist system (upwardly mobile, not racially profiled, able to move to White suburbs, etc.) from an accusation that she, individually, is a racist. Without being able to make that differentiation, White people in general decide to vigorously defend their own personal non-racism, or point out that it doesn’t exist because they don’t see it.

The result of this is an incessantly repeating argument where a Black person says “Racism still exists. It is real,” and a white person argues “You’re wrong, I’m not racist at all. I don’t even see any racism.” My aunt’s immediate response is not “that is wrong, we should do better.” No, her response is self-protection: “That’s not my fault, I didn’t do anything. You are wrong.”

Racism is not slavery. As President Obama said, it’s not avoiding the use
of the word Nigger. Racism is not white water fountains and the back of
the bus. Martin Luther King did not end racism. Racism is a cop severing
the spine of an innocent man. It is a 12 year old child being shot for playing with a toy gun in a state where it is legal to openly carry firearms.

But racism is even more subtle than that. It’s more nuanced. Racism is
the fact that “White” means “normal” and that anything else is different. Racism is our acceptance of an all white Lord of the Rings cast because
of “historical accuracy,” ignoring the fact that this is a world with an
entirely fictionalized history.

Even when we make shit up,
we want it to be white.

And racism is the fact that we all accept that it is white. Benedict Cumberbatch playing Khan in Star Trek. Khan, who is from India.
Is there anyone Whiter than Benedict fucking Cumberbatch? What?
They needed a “less racial” cast because they already had the
Black Uhura character?

That is racism. Once you let yourself see it, it’s there all the time.

Black children learn this when their parents give them “The Talk.”
When they are sat down at the age of 5 or so and told that their best
friend’s father is not sick, and not in a bad mood — he just doesn’t
want his son playing with you. Black children grow up early to life in
The Matrix. We’re not given a choice of the red or blue pill. Most white people, like my aunt, never have to choose. The system was made for
White people, so White people don’t have to think about living in it.

But we can’t point this out.

Living every single day with institutionalized racism and then having to argue its very existence, is tiring, and saddening, and angering. Yet if we express any emotion while talking about it, we’re tone policed, told we’re being angry. In fact, a key element in any racial argument in America is the Angry Black person, and racial discussions shut down when that person speaks. The Angry Black person invalidates any arguments about racism because they are “just being overly sensitive,” or “too emotional,” or– playing the race card. Or even worse, we’re told that we are being racist (Does any intelligent person actually believe a systematically oppressed demographic has the ability to oppress those in power?)

But here is the irony, here’s the thing that all the angry Black people know, and no calmly debating White people want to admit: The entire discussion of race in America centers around the protection of White feelings.

Ask any Black person and they’ll tell you the same thing. The reality of thousands of innocent people raped, shot, imprisoned, and systematically disenfranchised are less important than the suggestion that a single White person might be complicit in a racist system.

This is the country we live in. Millions of Black lives are valued less than a single White person’s hurt feelings.

White people and Black people are not having a discussion about race. Black people, thinking as a group, are talking about living in a racist system. White people, thinking as individuals, refuse to talk about “I, racist” and instead protect their own individual and personal goodness. In doing so, they reject the existence of racism.

But arguing about personal non-racism is missing the point.

Despite what the Charleston Massacre makes things look like, people are dying not because individuals are racist, but because individuals are helping support a racist system by wanting to protect their own non-racist self beliefs.

People are dying because we are supporting a racist system that justifies White people killing Black people.


see this in how one Muslim killer is Islamic terror; how one Mexican thief points to the need for border security; in one innocent, unarmed Black man shot in the back by a cop, then sullied in the media as a thug and criminal.

And in the way a white racist in a state that still flies the confederate flag is seen as “troubling” and “unnerving.” In the way people “can’t understand why he would do such a thing.”

A white person smoking pot is a “hippie” and a Black person doing it is a “criminal.” It’s evident in the school to prison pipeline and the fact that there are close to 20 people of color in prison for every white person.

There’s a headline from The Independent that sums this up quite nicely: “Charleston shooting: Black and Muslim killers are ‘terrorists’ and ‘thugs’. Why are white shooters called ‘mentally ill’?”

I’m gonna read that again: “Black and Muslim killers are ‘terrorists’ and ‘thugs’. Why are white shooters called ‘mentally ill’?”

Did you catch that? It’s beautifully subtle. This is an article talking specifically about the different way we treat people of color in this nation and even in this article’s headline, the white people are “shooters” and the Black and Muslim people are “killers.”

Even when we’re talking about racism, we’re using racist language to make people of color look dangerous and make White people come out as not so bad.

Just let that sink in for a minute, then ask yourself why Black people are angry when they talk about race.

The reality of America is that White people are fundamentally good, and so when a white person commits a crime, it is a sign that they, as an individual, are bad. Their actions as a person are not indicative of any broader social construct. Even the fact that America has a growing number of violent hate groups, populated mostly by white men, and that nearly *all* serial killers are white men can not shadow the fundamental truth of white male goodness. In fact, we like White serial killers so much, we make mini-series about them.

White people are good as a whole, and only act badly as individuals.

People of color, especially Black people (but boy we can talk about
“The Mexicans” in this community) are seen as fundamentally bad.
There might be a good one — and we are always quick to point them
out to our friends, show them off as our Academy Award for “Best Non-Racist in a White Role” — but when we see a bad one, it’s just proof that
the rest are, as a rule, bad.

This, all of this, expectation, treatment, thought, the underlying social system that puts White in the position of Normal and good, and Black
in the position of “other” and “bad,” all of this, is racism.

And White people, every single one of you, are complicit in this racism because you benefit directly from it.

This is why I don’t like the story of the good samaritan. Everyone likes to think of themselves as the person who sees someone beaten and bloodied and helps him out.

That’s too easy.

If I could re-write that story, I’d rewrite it from the perspective of Black America. What if the person wasn’t beaten and bloody? What if it wasn’t so obvious? What if they were just systematically challenged in a thousand small ways that actually made it easier for you to succeed in life?

Would you be so quick to help then?
Or would you, like most White people, stay silent and let it happen?

Here’s what I want to say to you: Racism is so deeply embedded in this country not because of the racist right-wing radicals who practice it openly, it exists because of the silence and hurt feelings of liberal America.

That’s what I want to say, but really, I can’t. I can’t say that because I’ve spent my life not talking about race to White people. In a big way, it’s my fault. Racism exists because I, as a Black person, don’t challenge you to look at it.

Racism exists because I, not you, am silent.

But I’m caught in the perfect Catch 22, because when I start pointing out racism, I become the Angry Black Person, and the discussion shuts down again. So I’m stuck.

All the Black voices in the world speaking about racism all the time do not move White people to think about it– but one White John Stewart talking about Charleston has a whole lot of White people talking about it. That’s the world we live in. Black people can’t change it while White people are silent and deaf to our words.

White people are in a position of power in this country because of racism. The question is: Are they brave enough to use that power to speak against the system that gave it to them?

So I’m asking you to help me. Notice this. Speak up. Don’t let it slide. Don’t stand watching in silence. Help build a world where it never gets to the point where the Samaritan has to see someone bloodied and broken.

As for me,
I will no longer be silent.

I’m going to try to speak kindly, and softly, but that’s gonna be hard. Because it’s getting harder and harder for me to think about the protection of White people’s feelings when White people don’t seem to care at all about the loss of so many Black lives.

The Constitution; Flawed or Just Outdated?


I have to say it is both. But for the sake of argument let’s just say it is just outdated; there is usually less offense taken from this perspective but there is offense taken none the less. I am constantly amazed and offended when so many people get so deeply offended at any criticism of this document. As if it were sacred scripture or something. That however does not floor me as bad as the offense people take at any hint of criticism of any of its writers.

Let’s just consider what should be undisputed facts and not my opinions, this document was written by politicians, it was written to or towards the English Crown; or at the very least with the King in mind. It was meant to define to the King what the new system of government these revolutionaries where setting up I would think as a show that they weren’t going off half cocked but that they had a plan. Regardless it was written by men who just won the freedom to govern themselves, men who were now free from English rule.

The Constitution was written for a government that would govern 13 independent colonies. Leaders of this revolution were awarded colonies to govern on their own,  independent of each other without a Federal government in the respect that we have today, this aspect is the source of one of it’s biggest flaws I will get to shortly. But their were only 13 colonies not 50 states. It was written in 1787 before there was a president, two years before and it was written by the Continental Congress. At that time the colonies had governors who were appointed by the King. Continental, important term here because it refers to a body of government in the North American Continent i.e. a separate one from the one on the European Continent. It was written by a Congress who wanted to be able to have authority of the colonies that were governed by the Crown. These men did not want those appointed governors to have any authority over them. Remember this was all done in succession from the Kings rule. These were all men with a common goal of independence.

Those fact are key here, especially the fact that these were men with a common goal. They were working together; this is not the mindset of today’s Congress, but then again they are still of the mindset of not being ruled by anyone; remember their was no President at the time and wanted the king to have no authority over them. They didn’t want a future President to either, they still had a nasty taste in their mouth from the monarchy.

To my main point. Those men were working together, they had a common goal; why would the allow for a Congress of different goals and ideals, and one that had 4 times the number of members in it when writing this document? It is obvious to me that they never considered the possibility that there would ever be 50 states, resulting in a larger body of government of men who were not trying to reach a goal of independence? This document was a war-time set of rules, not a document defining a set of rules for a completely independant  nation. (Here is a good place to point out that at the time only white Christian men who owned land had the right to vote, in other words all votes were cast by men of the same mindset, values and ideas). I sincerely doubt these men ever considered a nation of such diverse religious and political beliefs. These men allowed for men of different variations of the Christian faith, men with a belief in god. Yes they allowed for differences in the worship of god but they assumed everyone believed in god in the first place. They left no room for non believers. This fact is abundantly clear by the Declaration of Independence which yes does not mention religion or even suggest religiosity, it does specifically mention god and it does directly refer to god.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

These first words were specifically directed at the king; a king who believed he was appointed by god. The founding fathers were disputing the fact that the king was any better than they were.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

These words were also directed at the king; a king who believed he was given the authority to speak for god to them. They were telling this king that only god had that authority, that god never gave any man that authority. They were not just taking authority away from the king they were giving authority back to god.

But back to the political body of Congress itself. The Constitution was written with a common goal in mind. these men considered that there would someday be differences in political agendas, which is why the allowed for it in the Bill of Rights. they considered that men would worship god in their own way, and they may have even considered there would be men who wouldn’t worship at all but they did not allow for this in these documents; not believing in god was a crime punishable by death in this new America, these rights they were assuring were for god fearing (white) men only. In other words they never considered that citizens that weren’t white, god fearing and male would ever have the right to vote or would ever be voted for; that women or non white, non believing men or women would ever be part of this body of government. These differences in beliefs result in differences in politics. I am pretty sure they didn’t consider that Congress would be voting on abortion rights; gun control (remember they wanted citizens armed in a country that was occupied by the king’s army). They weren’t considering that someday Americans would seek to arm themselves against them, they were men who shared the desire to not be ruled by a foreign monarch, men who wanted to make sure that no one would ever have authority over them; remember there was no president at the time, they I believe assumed that the future president they were allowing for was, like them, a man with the same goals of being free from foreign rule, while not leaving room for error if this elected president was in fact an agent of the crown who could then take back the authority they had taken away; remember the governors of the colonies were all appointed by the king; they were forming this new government from the top down, not the bottom up. They fulling intended these governors would be replaced with elected ones with the same end goal of separation from the crown.

 

So let’s look at the holes these fact created in this sacred document.

  • any member of Congress can filibuster. A filibuster is nothing more than a member of Congress running out the clock. It isn’t as painless as a quarterback running out the clock to prevent the opposing team from getting another chance to score; for starters the House play clock is several hours in comparison to the NFL’s 15 min quarters. Congress’ strategy to prevent the opposing side from scoring is to talk until the clock runs out and there is no time for a vote. Ted Cruz once read Green Eggs and Ham and talked about his kids for over 14 hours to run out the clock.
  • Congress can also decide to vote against a bill without even reading it. This is equivalent to a judge passing sentence without a trial because he knows that a jury won’t convict. In other words the whole democratic majority rule thing doesn’t apply in Congress, defeating the whole reason the people elect politicians to represent them in the first place.
  • A bill for background checks for someone buying a firearm for example can also have in it a section that states abortion would become illegal if the bill passes. Let’s walk past the fact that one law has absolutely nothing to do with the other; a Senator who was elected because of their policy on gun control would most like vote no on this bill because they also have a right to choose policy. These deliberate conflicts in policies are intended to do exactly what they end up doing; prevent the passing of legislation put up for a vote by the opposing party. And these conflicting parts of a bill can be tacked on to a bill that has already been submitted by the opposing party leaving no room for them to choose not to submit it. In other words legislation is voted on so no one can argue that a bill was not considered.
  • The Presidential duty to appoint judges, emphasis on the word DUTY. By rules of this very Congress the President has an obligation to make sure our judicial system has enough judges to assure Americans their 5th Amendment right to due process, and the right to a fair trial. The idea of this system is that everyone is entitled to an unbiased judgement from the courts. A judge isn’t supposed to have personal views influence decisions; they are supposed to pass judgement based on the letter of the law. In the case of the Supreme Court of the United States however this is the  highest authority of what the letter of the law is. The President has a duty to appoint these judges but according to democratic policy Congress is supposed to approve this appointment to assure that once again the majority will rule, to assure that one individual does not have absolute authority. Today’s Congress has simply decided they again won’t do what is the thing under  job description for Senators and vote for the people who voted for them, are flat-out refusing to do their job. The majority doesn’t rule then does it? Any other employee in any position in any other establishment would and should be fired for refusing to do their job. Hell my 3-year-old twins grandson’s get sent to the wall when they refuse to do what they are supposed to. Imagine if a teacher refused to teach, a teacher that just sat at their desk in a classroom of students saying nothing. Imagine a fireman who refused to turn on the hose he was holding standing in front of a burning building full of people who were locked inside. Imagine a pilot of a commercial airline refusing to fly the plane full of passengers who had no way of getting off the plane. Imagine a mother refusing to parent a child, a parent who just sat there watching tv while their baby was lying in a crib unable to feed itself. Imagine a President who refused to get out of bed; who decided they didn’t want do anything all day while an enemy troops were landing on our shores. Imagine a bank manager who refused to unlock the doors; who decided they just wanted to sit in their office all day playing solitaire on their computer. All these people would lose their jobs. But; no one can fire a member of Congress. Even Presidents can be impeached for minor violations like lying about an affair, but a member of Congress? Nope, they can spend 14 hours reading a children’s book to the most powerful assembly of elected officials in the worlds most powerful nation.

I would be willing to bet that our founding fathers; while writing our founding documents; while founding our system of government considered that their successors would be such immature, irresponsible, apathetic and deceitful manipulators of their hard work; of their dreams and of their ideals.

 

As For The 2016 Presidential Candidates; Here Is Where I Stand


First let me say that I am a Hillary Supporter through and through, have been ever since the United Nations World Conference for Women in 1995, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXM4E23Efvk  . Nothing she has done throughout her years as a Senator and her time as Secretary of State has or will change or lose my support. Everything that happened with Bill Clinton and women; the way she did or did not react or publicly deal with his womanizing ways (yes I believe he is or was a womanizer but do not believe he raped or sexually assaulted anyone. Monica was a big girl who by choice gave him that blow job, she was a willing participant.) Though it speaks to Bill’s character, Hillary’s marriage is none of my business; and as far as I know nothing that happened affected her ability to do her job. That being said, Benghazi? I fail to see how she is at fault for anything that happened that day, as far as I know she asked for more money to secure the Americans in the embassy’s that were attacked that day; yes there was more than one. The Americans that died, as sorrowful as that was, they knew the risks when they went there. They put their own lives on the line willingly as part of their job. Now, how the White House handled the press and what the public was told sure their was a lot of questions there but again; I fail to see how that was Hillary’s fault or responsibility.

Let’s get to the emails; I watch CSPAN, not the news. I think for myself by what those in question actually say not what the press or someone else says they said. Repeatedly those who are in charge of the investigation and all those who she answers to said that the use of a private email is not encouraged but it is not prohibited. She is not the first in a secure position to do so. Personally I probably would have done the same thing given how easy Snowden got hold of information, knowing the leaks within the government and such her private email was probably safer. And I have to point out that Congress is insisting she hand over Top Secret information; TOP SECRET being the key words here, most if not all of those asking for those emails don’t have the security clearance to read them. If they or those who side with them can’t find them, don’t know what is in them then she made a wise decision; she has kept them from eyes that are not cleared to see them.

I firmly believe that those asking are desperately trying to find something they can use against her, especially concerning Benghazi because they have so far found nothing to convict of.

Now we get to the election process. I am not arguing that the election process is at the very least flawed, the whole super delegate thing is very unfair; but that is not Hillary’s fault, she didn’t and isn’t the one responsible for it.

Many of those that hate her do so on the grounds that she is corrupt; that she is bought and paid for, that she caters to the 1%, that she is against the working class. I don’t see it that way; but admittedly I do not know how or who invests or donates to her that is corrupt or unethical. Is she wealthy? Yes, is that a crime? No.

Now on to Bernie; but first let me point out that Bernie and Hillary don’t differ much if at all on most policies; at least not the important ones. They both want harsher gun laws, they both want universal health care, they both want free higher education (except Hillary doesn’t believe it should be free to Trumps kids or even her own for that matter). They both support funding Planned Parenthood and both support equal rights and pay for women.

Bernie in my mind is what my grandma used to call ‘poor proud’. Poor proud is someone who lives like they are poor to prove they are like those that are when in fact they are living poor by choice, without actually knowing the struggle of the lower class and without experiencing the fear of not being able to feed your kids or of becoming homeless. He chose to live in a Sugar shack in college that had no electricity, running waters and had dirt floors; but he did so by choice not because he had no other choice or resources. Don’t let his poor proud act fool you, not only does he make 174,000 dollars a year as a Senator and his wife go somewhere around a 200,000 dollars severance pay after stepping down as president of Burlington College; this was close to here yearly salary. I don’t know how much the Sanders are worth but they are definitely not middle class.

I don’t agree with his free education for all; for those who need it but not for all. I also believe that if he accomplishes this it will lower the quality of higher education; it will be comparable to the poor quality of public education now. This goes for his free medical universally as well. I believe he has the best of intentions but I think he is unrealistic and as my grandma would say…he is poor proud.

But like Hillary he stands for the equality of women, our right to choose, stricter gun laws, cleaner energy, stopping global warming and lowering taxes for the middle and lower class. I don’t know more about his foreign policy other than that he voted against the war in Iraq and he stands against nuclear weapons.

Hillary is the only candidate who understands what is going on in Syria, and the Middle East. She is the only one who knows Foreign policy from the inside. She has already established relationships with other foreign leaders, she has negotiated with them and she understands who they are and what they want and what they will do. I fear Bernie’s higher moral ground attitude will interfere with his policies and his diplomacy with foreign policy.

This is where the thought of Trump in office terrifies me. I am not so much concerned with what he will do to or in the United States, it is what he will do to this country on a global scale. His arrogant third grade attitude; name calling, his bigotry, his misogyny, his lack of understanding foreign policy and his just bomb them all attitude will destroy any and all relationships that have been built with countries like Japan and Russia. His homophobic, Islamaphobic and white supremacy will alienate all foreign peoples and their leaders.

And his support of the NRA will lead to more mass shootings and violent deaths than the already unacceptable rate it is already. His lack of basic manners and his direct political incorrectness; his point to offend; his bullying and his just plain bad manners will only not offend others like him. His reality show on the road to the White House is a testament to the overwhelming number of ignorant people who think Jerry Springer an awesome show.

Yes I will vote for Hillary, and yes the fact that she is a woman adds to her appeal. Not just any woman but a woman who will fight to end the violence and oppression of women world wide. That is the issue that is at the top of my list of wants as far as change in this world; and she alone will not stand on protocol or policy and back down from the fight to end the violence against women.

Trump Talks To Kissinger To Learn Foreign Policy


Trump admitted he needed to learn about Foreign Policy, okay, so he reached out to the person he must have felt made the best policies of our; Henry Kissinger. The same Kissinger who as Secretary of State ordered the illegally bombings in Cambodia during the Vietnam war that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians; in a country not involved in the war. He also authorized the use of chemical weapons like Agent Orange in Vietnam which is a violation of the Geneva Convention; i.e. a war crime.

Kissinger is also wanted for questioning about his support of Chilean dictator General Augusto Pinochet who came into power after the CIA conspired to overthrow democratically elected leader Salvador Allende. Before Allende became president, Kissinger “I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist because of the irresponsibility of its own people.” The attempt to prevent the presidency of Allende resulted in the assassination of Rene Schneider, Commander-in-Chief of the Chilean Army. According to the U.S. Senate, the CIA “decided to support and engineer the assassination of General Schneider in order to clear the way for a coup.” A $3 million civil suit was filed by Schneider’s family against Kissinger and former director of the CIA Richard Helms.

 

Kissinger’s involvement in Operation Condor, the political oppression of the people in Chile, is why lawyers fighting for Human in Chile have filed complaints against him.

“rightist military dictatorships in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay coordinated efforts throughout the 1970s to kidnap and kill hundreds of exiled political opponents”; according to the International Herald Tribune, it is said this was done with the support of the Nixon and Ford administrations.

These are just a few example of Kissinger’s policies, just bomb them. Diplomacy escaped this man; and diplomacy is definitely not what Trump will bring to the White House.

 

The Bathroom Battle Won; Mic Is Dropped And She Has Walked Away


I am sharing a post I saw on Facebook. Like I said, drop the mic and walk away; there is nothing more to say;

This woman, Kasey Rose-Hodge, just shut down the whole bathroom conversation in magnificent style!

“Dear creepy heterosexual men guarding our bathrooms,

My entire life, I’ve been told to fear you in one way or another. I’ve been told to cover my body as to not distract you in school, to cover my body to help avoid unwanted advances or comments, to cover my body as to not tempt you to sexually assault me, to reject your unwanted advances politely as to not anger you. I’ve been taught to never walk alone at night, to hold my keys in my fist while walking in parking lots, to check the backseat of my car, to not drink too much because you might take advantage of me. I’ve been told what I should and shouldn’t do with my body as to not jeopardize my relationships with you.

I’ve been warned not to emasculate you, to let “boys be boys”, to protect your fragile ego and to not tread on your even more fragile masculinity. I’ve been taught to keep my emotions in check, to let you be the unit of measure for how much emotion is appropriate and to adjust my emotions accordingly. I’ve been taught that you’re allowed to categorize women into mothers/sisters/girlfriends/wives/daughters but any woman outside of your protected categories is fair game.

So to those of you who think you’re being helpful by “protecting” me and my fellow women, you’re like a shark sitting in the Lifeguard chair. I wasn’t uncomfortable until you showed up at the pool and the only potential predator I see is you.

Your mothers, sisters, girlfriends, wives and daughters don’t need you to walk them to the bathroom for safety. Your fathers, brothers, friends and sons need to walk themselves away from their own double standards. Women are sexually harassed and sexually assaulted on school campuses, on the street, at their jobs, on the Internet, in their own homes, in ANY public place. And it has been excused or ignored for so long because of what you and I are taught from the first years of our interactions with each other: You, as a male, are not accountable for your own actions. It’s MY responsibility, as a female, to not “provoke” you. But then you get to Knight-In-Shining-Armor your way through life for those in your protected categories and I am expected to applaud you. Why the outrage now over bathrooms? Why aren’t you outraged every single day?

If you’re telling me that there are high volumes of boys and men out there, in schools or in general, who are just waiting for a “loop hole” to sexually assault girls and women, we have bigger problems on our hands than bathrooms. The first problem would be your apparent lack of knowledge of how often it happens OUTSIDE of bathrooms, with no “loop holes” needed. This isn’t about Transgender bathroom access. This is about you not trusting the boys and men in your communities and/or fearing that they’re all secretly predators. Why do you have this fear? How many fathers have panicked when their daughters started dating because they “know how teenaged boys can be because they used to be one”? How many times have girls been warned “boys are only after one thing”? A mother can bring her young son into the women’s restroom and that’s fine but a father bringing his young daughter into the men’s restroom is disturbing because men are assumed to be predators and “little girls” shouldn’t be exposed to that.

So instead of picking up your sword and heading to Target or the girls’ locker room to defend our “rights”, why don’t you start somewhere that could actually make a difference? Challenge your children’s schools to end sexist dress codes and dress codes that sexualize girls as young as age 5. Advocate for proper (or any) sex education classes in all public schools by a certain grade level. Focus more on teaching your sons not to rape vs teaching your daughters how to avoid being raped. Stop asking “How would you feel if that was your mother or sister?” It shouldn’t take the comparison to clue you in to what’s right or wrong. Question why you’re more worried about your daughter being around men than your son being around women in bathrooms and dressing rooms. Stop walking by Victoria’s Secret with no problem but covering your son’s eyes if a woman is breastfeeding in public. Stop treating your daughter’s body as some fortress you’re sworn to protect as if that’s all she’s got to offer the world.”

– Kasey Rose-Hodge

Pass it on!

MISS Representation


default

An insightful look at how media, including national news, misrepresents women and causes political efficacy. Interviews with great women like Hilary Clinton, Katie Couric, Geena Davis and many professional and educated women in media, the press, film, politics and educational fields. Brought tears to my eyes more than once.

I give this 5 plus stars

It is available on Netflix

Domestic Violence is a Man Problem – Are we man enough to do something about it?


An inspirational man…

writeROBwrite

I hear that October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month. I’m glad the old white men who decide these things set aside a month to think about it, so that we don’t have to ALL the time.

Being a dude myself, I don’t really know the best way to approach the conversation, so I’ll tell a story. I was around 10 or 11, or 12 or 13 – I don’t exactly know why, but almost every memory from my childhood is blurred together and I always say I was 12.

Anyhow, my dad had fallen on tough times, he was on crack, and we had a lot of crack heads in our house, including this woman Elaine and her four kids. There were two younger boys, I don’t remember their names. There was a daughter, Debra, who was the same age as me. Then also she had a son Chris who was…

View original post 1,146 more words

Kristi Stadler’s Suicide Assisted by Lack of Gun Control


Kristi’s suicide though tragic could have just as easily been a murder. That is not to say that I place blame on the Phoenix police for her death, it is to say that if she had killed someone else (which could have very easily happened) then I would place blame on the lack of gun control laws that allowed the Phoenix police to put a gun in the hand of a mentally unstable person.

This deeply disturbing story began more than a decade ago, but the only part of this story that needs to be retold is the end. Kristi Stadler was a woman who had been hospitalized several times for depression. She was on medication and she had an electrical implant to treat her depression. She had attempted suicide more than a few times over a period of 12 years.

This mentally unstable, heavily medicated and suicidal woman legally bought a gun which she had in her hand when she called her psychiatrist to tell her she was going to use it on herself. This mentally unstable, heavily medicated and  suicidal woman who legally bought a gun had it taken away by the officers who responded to her psychiatrists 911 call. These responders from the Phoenix police department upon arrival at the scene where her psychiatrist was waiting used her, the doctor’s, cell phone to talk to Kristi and calm her down and get her to relinquish her weapon.

These same officers, for fear of a lawsuit for violating this mentally unstable, heavily medicated and suicidal woman’s Second and Fourteenth amendment rights, returned this weapon back to her.

With the gun that the police returned to her in her hand Kristi called a crisis counselor named Luis.  And this is what she had to say;

“I went and picked up my gun today because they gave it back to me because they’re very, very stupid, and now I have my gun, and it’s loaded, and I’d like to shoot myself. So there’s my dilemma. I’m a little drunk…when I try to kill myself, I’m usually drunk. It makes it easier. I’ve tried this many times, and I have been unsuccessful, but a gun makes it very easy to be successful in killing yourself.”

Sometime after 4 a.m. the following morning Kristi Stadler shot herself with that same gun.

When Kristi walked into the gun dealer’s where she legally purchased this gun the background check that all gun dealers run before any gun sale should have included her history of mental illness and the fact that she was on medication for depression and the fact that she had an electrical implant to help treat her depression and the fact that she had been hospitalized several times for depression and the fact that she had attempted suicide. More than once. Having been provided with this information the sale should have been denied.

When Kristi had her weapon confiscated the Phoenix Police Department the requisite ‘Brady check’  that they are required to run before returning any confiscated gun should have included her history of mental illness including the fact that she was on medication for depression and the fact that she had an electrical implant to help treat her depression and the fact that she had been hospitalized several times for depression and the fact that she had attempted suicide. More than once. Let’s not forget the reason why the police confiscated her weapon in the first place. What the ‘Brady check did include was the fact that Kristi had never been ordered into treatment by a judge. Having that information and only that information they contacted Kristi and told her she could come pick up her gun. Yet again, let’s not forget the reason why the police confiscated her weapon in the first place. That alone should have been all that was needed for them not to be violating Kristi’s Second and Fourteenth amendment rights by not returning her weapon to her.

A person with a history of mental illness, who is on medication and has an electrical implant to treat depression, who has attempted suicide, more than once, shouldn’t be protected by any amendment rights that allows the ownership of a gun.

Kristi could have just as easily used this weapon she was legally able to own to kill her daughter that was taken away from her by the child’s father, who did so because he feared for the girl’s safety. She could have just as easily used this weapon she was legally able to own to kill the child’s father to prevent him from taking her daughter away, who did so because he feared for the girl’s safety. She could have just as easily shot her psychiatrist when she went to where Kristi was and where the police were dispatched to because she was threatening to use her gun to shoot herself. She could have just as easily shot of those same police officers who responded to the 911 call.

If she had threatened anyone else’s life with her gun like she did her own she would have been charged with the felony of armed with intent to use’ or possibly even with attempted murder. Would the police have returned the gun to her then? No. If the police would have been responding to that kind of 911 call and confiscated her weapon because she threatened to use it on someone else which would have undoubtedly resulted in her being convicted of a gun crime she would no longer legally be able to own a gun.

Kristi’s father Terry Stadler sued the Phoenix Police Department. His lawsuit was dismissed by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton. She noted that the Police followed the law by returning Kristi’s gun to her.  Judge Bolton had this to say;

“Plaintiff suggests that the court develop a new limitation on the constitutional right to bear arms that would require all state and local governments to determine that an individual is not at risk of committing suicide prior to returning a seized firearm, the court believes that establishing such a limitation is a legislative function, not a judicial one.” 

Upon the dismissal of his lawsuit Terry Stadler was ordered to pay 450,000 dollars to cover the Police Department and the state’s legal fees.

Who is to blame for all this? I point the finger at the Right Wing NRA members and their supporters. I point the finger at the politicians who are so greedy for these NRA’s money that won’t cross them for fear of losing the support of these very powerful lobbyists. I point the finger at a system of government that gives organization’s like the NRA power as lobbyists. I point the finger at all the self-righteous ‘Americans’ who use the over 200-year-old constitution written by men who were trying to free themselves from foreign rule and who were arming themselves to protect their new-found untested form of government in a battle for freedom and the outdated amendment that was written during a war that was not fought by citizens armed with the unimaginable types of weapons and ammunition that is  available today in a country with 37 more states than there were at the time these rights were given to the people.

The Extermination of Jesus The Jew


If Jesus would have been put on trial in Rome by a Catholic Court and Judged by the Pope instead of being tried in Jerusalem by a Roman General who ordered he be given 40 lashes and made to walk up to the top of Golgotha to be nailed to a cross and crucified for being a Messiah he would have been crammed into a box car of a train and shipped to Auschwitz where he would have had a number tattooed on his arm, where he would have been stripped naked then sent to a gas chamber where he would have been exterminated for being a Jew.

Freedom of Speech


“The fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it. Indeed, if it is the speaker’s opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection. For it is a central tenet of the First Amendment that the government must remain neutral in the marketplace of ideas.”

“Admittedly, these oft-repeated First Amendment principles, like other principles, are subject to limitations. In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568 (1942), we held that a state could lawfully punish an individual for the use of insulting ” fighting’ words — those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.”

But the sort of expression involved in this case does not seem to us to be governed by the exception to the general First Amendment principles stated above.

The Court of Appeals interpreted the jury’s finding to be that the ad parody “was not reasonably believable,” and in accordance with our custom we accept this finding. Respondent is thus relegated to his claim for damages awarded by the jury for the intentional infliction of emotional distress by “outrageous” conduct. But for reasons heretofore stated this claim cannot, consistently with the First Amendment, form a basis for the award of damages when the conduct in question is the publication of a caricature such as the ad parody involved here. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly Reversed.

Supreme Court Justice C.J. Rehnquist

485 U.S. 46

Supreme Court of the United States

February 24, 1988 Decide

Hustler Magazine and Larry C Flynt, Petitioners V. Larry Falwell

NO 86-1276

Violence In The Name Of God


This morning Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, while giving a press conference about the Murder of an American Ambassador and 3 other Americans at the Embassy in Libya, said something that has been said by nearly every President, Vice President, Secretary of State or any other American leaders and government officials when faced with war or an act of war upon American’s ‘In the name of God’,

Those who act with violence in the name of God are not religious; this is not Islam or the word of Muhammad, or any other God etc. etc.

Yes they are and yes it is. Muslim’s who kill in the name of Muhammad are acting as true Muslim’s.

Catholic’s who kill in the name of God are acting as true Catholic’s.

Protestants who kill in the name of God are acting as true Protestants.

They are all carrying out God’s will. They are doing as their God has told them.

Since the day the Catholic Church came to be they have been killing those who were blasphemers or heretical. Today, still Protestants and Catholic are killing each other over religion. Muslims, Jews and Christians alike all believe in the same God. They all believe they are descendants of Abraham. Yet kill each other in that same God’s name, because God tells them to. God demands the death of those who oppose him, of those who do not obey him. The Wrath of God remember?

Exodus 11:7 But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog move his tongue, against man or beast; that ye may know how that the Lord doth put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel.

Exodus 15:3 The Lord is a man of war. The Lord is his name.

Exodus 15:7 And in the greatness of thine excellency thou hast overthrown them that rose up against thee; thou sentest forth thy wrath which consumed them as stubble.

Exodus 15:14 The people shall hear and be afraid; sorrow shall take hold on the inhabitants of Palestina. 15:15 Then the dukes of Edom shall be amazed; the mighty men of Moab, trembling shall take hold upon them; all the inhabitants of Canaan shall melt away.

Exodus 17:13 And Joshua discomfited Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword. 17:14 And the Lord said unto Moses, write this for a memorial in a book and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua; for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. 17:15 And Moses built an altar and called the name of it Jehovahnissi 17:16 For he said, because the Lord hath sworn that the Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.

Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.

Exodus 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. 22:20 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

Leviticus 24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him; as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.

From The Holy Quran

Sura IV Nissaa Section 10:74 Let those fight in the cause of God who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of God, whether he is slain or gets victory soon shall we give him a reward of great value. 10:75 And why should ye not fight in the cause of God and of those who being weak, are ill-treated and oppressed? Men, women, and children, whose cry is “Our Lord, rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from Thee One who will protect; and raise for us from Thee One who will help” 10:76 Those who believe fight in the cause of God, and those who reject faith fight in the cause of evil. So fight ye against the friends of Satan; feeble indeed in the cunning or Satan.

Section 11:77 Hast thou not turned thy vision to those who were told to hold back their hands from fight but establish regular prayers and spend in regular Charity? When at length the order for fighting was issued to them, behold a section of them feared men as or even more than they should have feared God. they said “Our Lord why hast thou ordered us to fight? Wouldst Thou not grant us respite to our natural term, near enough?” Say: “Short is the enjoyment of this world; the hereafter is the best for those who do right; never will ye be dealt with unjustly in the very least” 11:78 “Wherever ye are, death will find you out even if ye are in towers built up strong and high”

Section 11:83 When there comes to them some matter touching Public safety or fear, they divulge it. If they had only referred it to the Apostle or to those charged with authority among them, the proper investigators would have tested it from them direct. Were it not for the Grace and mercy of God unto you, all but a few of you would have fallen into the clutches of Satan. 11:84 then fight in God’s cause. Thou art held responsible only for thyself and rouse the believers. It may be that God will restrain the fury of the unbelievers; for God is the strongest in might and in punishment.

Section 12:88 why should ye be divided into two parties about the Hypocrites? god hath upset them for their evil deeds. Would ye guide those whom God hath thrown out of the way? for those whom God hath thrown out of the way, never shalt thou find the way. 12:89 they but wish that ye should reject faith as they do and thus be on the same footing as they, But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of God (from what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize the and slay them wherever ye find them; and in any case take no friends or helpers from their ranks. 12:90 Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty of peace or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting their own People. If God had pleased, he could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you; therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and instead send you guarantees of peace, ten God hath opened no way for you to war against them. 12:91 Others you will find that wish to gain your confidence as well as that of their people; every time they are sent back to temptation, they succumb therto; if they withdraw no from you nor give you guarantees of peace besides restraining their hands, seize them and slay them wherever ye get them; in their case we have provided you with a clear argument against them.

The Spastic Tubes Theory


Recently Rep Todd Akin brought the abortion laws to the forefront of the Republican Party platform when he referenced the “Spastic tubes” theory when argued his case for changing the abortion laws for rape and incest victims. This theory is that of Dr. John Wilke which he explains in his book Abortion and Slavery. To emphasize my fear of this man and the Pr0-lifer’s that support him I am first going to give this man’s ‘credentials’. Dr. John C. Wilke is a medical practitioner who was a senior attending staff member at Providence and Good Samaritan Hospital in Cincinnati Ohio where he worked for 40 years. Currently he is president of the Nationwide Educational Life Issues Institute, on the board of Reference Academy of Medical Ethics (AAME). For 10 years he was president of the United States National Right To Life Committee and The United States National Right To Life Federation which he founded in 1984.

He has his own radio show 5 Mins that is broadcast on 400 stations world-wide and his 1 min comment “Life Jewels” airs on over 1000 English and Spanish stations around the world.

Dr. Wilke and his wife Barbara are the authors of Abortion and Slavery, History Repeats and Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia Past and Present. In 1971 they published The Handbook on Abortion, Abortion Questions and Answers which has sold over 1,000,000 copies world-wide and translated into 21 languages. This was the first in a series spanning 25 years. In 1985 they published the 3rd book in this series Abortion: Questions and Answers, Why Can’t We Love Them Both? Dr. and Mrs. Wilke have also published 7 books on Sexual Health.

I have selected some excerpts from the Q and A in ‘Why Can’t We Love Them Both?” which contain the Doctor’s theory on why victims of rape and incest don’t get pregnant in the first place. The doctor argues that women can’t get pregnant when raped because their bodies will not allow the sperm to fertilize the egg if a woman was ‘legitimately raped, therefore there is no need legalize abortion for victims of rape and incest. He states his views as ‘scientific fact’ and mathematically concludes that women cannot get pregnant when raped or molested.

I have entered in my thoughts on each answer given in italics after each one. The questions and answers are copied word for word out of the book.

Dr. Wilke, “First and foremost this issue concerns forcible or assault rape, not consensual or marital rape”.

What exactly is consensual rape?

That is an oxymoron. And the law recognizes marital rape; only a male chauvinist would say that there isn’t rape in a marriage, only someone who believes that a woman is obligated to have sex with her husband.

Are assault rape pregnancies common?

No they are very rare.

-I don’t know where he gets this.

Are there accurate numbers?

The Justice Dept. from 1973 to 1987 surveyed 49,000 households annually, asking questions on violence and criminal acts. The results of those reported were: 1973-completed-rapes 95,934, 1987-completed rapes-82,505. The study stated that only 53% were reported to police. Accordingly the total numbers were: 1973-completed rapes-181,016. 1987-completed rapes-155,667. A more recent Justice Dept report using a study designed differently with more direct questions, returned a result of: 170,000 completed rapes and 140,000 attempted rapes.

-For starters let’s look at the years he uses for his statistics. Enough said.

And how many pregnancies result?

About 1 or 2 for each 1,000. Using the 170,000 figure, this translates into an overall total of 170 to 340 assault rape pregnancies a year in the entire United States.

One or two out of 1,000? Please explain.

There are about 100 million women in the United States old enough to be at risk for assault rape. Let’s use a figure of 200,000 forcible rapes every year. The studies available agree that there are no more than two pregnancies per 1,000 assault rapes. So much for the numbers. Let’s look at it from another angle and see if that figure makes sense. Of these 200,000 women who were raped, one-third are either too old or too young to get pregnant. That leaves 133,000 at risk of pregnancy. A woman is capable of being fertilized only three days out of her 30-day month. So divide 133,000 by 19 and 13,300 women remain. One-fourth of all women in the United States of child-bearing age have been sterilized. That drops the figure to 10,000. Only half of the assailants penetrate her body and/or deposit sperm. Cut it in half again. We are down to 5,ooo. Fifteen percent of non-surgically sterilized women are naturally sterile. That reduces the number to 3,600. Another 15% are on the p;ill or/are already pregnant. Now the figure is 3,070. Now factor in something that all adults know. It takes from five to ten months for an average couple to achieve a pregnancy. Using the smaller figure, to be conservative, divide the 3,000 figure by 5, and the number drops to about 600. In a healthy, peaceful marriage, the miscarriage rate ranges up to about 15%. In this case, we have incredible emotional trauma. Her body is upset. Even if she conceives, the miscarriage rate is higher than in a more normal pregnancy. If she loses 20% of 600, there are 450 left.

Finally, we must factor in one of the most important reasons why a rape victim rarely gets pregnant, and that is psychic trauma. Every woman is aware that stress and emotional factors can alter her menstrual cycle. To get pregnant and stay pregnant, a woman’s body must produce a very sophisticated mix of hormones. Hormone production is controlled by a part of the brain which is easily influenced by emotions. There’s no greater emotional trauma that can be experienced by a woman than an assault rape. This can radically upset her possibility of ovulation, fertilization, implantation and even nurturing of a pregnancy. So what further percentage reductions in pregnancy will this cause? No one really knows, but this factor certainly cuts the last figure by at least 50%, and probably more, leaving a final figure of 225 women pregnant each year, a number that closely matches the 200 found in clinical studies.

-I don’t even know how to respond to that. Here are some statistics I came up with

Rape-related pregnancy: estimates and descriptive characteristics from a national sample of women.

Holmes MM, Resnick HS, Kilpatrick DG, Best CL.

Source: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston 29425-2233, USA.

OBJECTIVE: We attempted to determine the national rape-related pregnancy rate and provide descriptive characteristics of pregnancies that result from rape.

STUDY DESIGN: A national probability sample of 4008 adult American women took part in a 3-year longitudinal survey that assessed the prevalence and incidence of rape and related physical and mental health outcomes.

RESULTS: The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year. Among 34 cases of rape-related pregnancy, the majority occurred among adolescents and resulted from assault by a known, often related perpetrator. Only 11.7% of these victims received immediate medical attention after the assault, and 47.1% received no medical attention related to the rape. A total 32.4% of these victims did not discover they were pregnant until they had already entered the second trimester; 32.2% opted to keep the infant whereas 50% underwent abortion and 5.9% placed the infant for adoption; an additional 11.8% had spontaneous abortion.

CONCLUSIONS: Rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency. It is a cause of many unwanted pregnancies and is closely linked with family and domestic violence. As we address the epidemic of unintended pregnancies in the United States, greater attention and effort should be aimed at preventing and identifying unwanted pregnancies that result from sexual victimization.

PMID: 8765248 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Why not allow abortion for rape pregnancies?

We must approach this with great compassion. The woman has been subjected to an ugly trauma, and she needs love, support and help. But she has been the victim of one violent act. Should we now ask her to be a party to a second violent act-that of abortion? Unquestionably, many would return the violence of killing an innocent baby for the violence of rape. But, before making this decision, remember that most of the trauma has already occurred. She has been raped. That trauma will live with her all her life. Furthermore, this girl did not report for help, but kept this to herself. For several weeks or months, she has thought of little else. Now, she has finally asked for help, she has shared her upset, and should be in a supportive situation. The utilitarian question from the mother’s stand-point is whether or not it would now be better to kill the developing baby within her. But will abortion now be best for her, or will it bring her more harm yet? What has happened and it’s damage has already occurred.

She’s old enough to know and have an opinion as to whether she carries a ‘baby’ or a ‘blob of protoplasm’. Will she be able to live comfortable with the memory that she ‘killed her developing baby?’ Or would she ultimately be more mature and pregnant unwillingly, she nevertheless solved her problem by being unselfish, by giving of herself and of her love to an innocent baby, who had not asked to be created, to deliver, perhaps to place for adoption, if she decides that is what is best for her baby. Compare this memory with the woman who can only look back and say, “I killed my baby”.

Considering the previous answers and his previous statements that a woman who is legitimately raped won’t get pregnant because her body won’t allow it how compassionate do you think he and his followers really are?

But carry the rapist’s child?

True, it is half his. But remember, half of the baby is also hers, and there are other outstretched arms that will adopt and love that baby.

I don’t see how she could!

Interestingly, the pregnant rape victim’s chief complaint is not that she is unwillingly pregnant, as bad as the experience is. The critical moment is fleeting in this area. It frequently pulls families together like never before. When women are impregnated through rape, their condition is treated in accordance, as are their families. We found this experience is forgotten, replaced by remembering the abortion, because it is what they did. In the majority of these cases, the pregnant victim’s problems stem more from the trauma of rape than the pregnancy itself. As to what factors make it most difficult to continue her pregnancy, the opinions, attitudes, and beliefs of others were most frequently cited; in other words, how her loved ones treated her.

-This is just bull. What an ass! If there is any truth to this at all it would be a result of how people like him treat rape victims.

But many laws would allow for this exception.

That is because many only think of the mother. But we should also think of the baby. Should we kill an innocent unborn baby for the crime of his father? Or let’s look at it this way. Do we punish other criminals by killing their children’? Besides, such laws pose major problems in reporting, and also women have been known to report falsely.

You accuse women of lying?

We don’t have to. Radical feminist guru Gloria Steinem, in a 1985 interview with USA Today said that “to make abortion legal only in cases of rape and incest would force women to lie.” The story of Jane Roe, of the Roe V. Wade decision, is well-known. Norma McCorvey (her real name) fabricated a story, that she had been gang raped at a circus, in the mistaken impression that this would permit her to obtain a legal abortion in Texas. Not until 1987 did she reveal that the baby was actually conceived “through what I thought was love.” Up until 1988, Pennsylvania’s Medicaid program funded abortions, for women who claimed they had been raped, without any requirement for reporting the purported assault to a law enforcement agency. Under this law, abortion clinic personnel issued thinly veiled public invitations for women to simply state that they’d been raped, and the state ended up funding an average of 36 abortions a month based on such unsubstantiated claims. In 1988 the legislature added a requirement for reporting the rape to a law enforcement agency, and the average dropped to less than 3 abortions per month.

-This man and his followers are obviously bias against ‘feminists’. He uses a quote from Gloria Steinem out of context. You have to look at the big picture, which I will paint after the following answer.

You said reporting was a problem?

The problem is requiring proof. If the woman goes directly to the hospital, her word is accepted. But, sadly, through fright or ignorance, she may not report it and quietly nurse her fears. She misses her period and hopes against hope that it isn’t what she thinks it is. Sometimes months ago by before finally, in tears, she reports to her mother, her physician, or some other counselor or confidante. To prove rape then is impossible. The only proof of rape then is to have a reliable witness corroborate the story, and such a witness almost never exists.

-It is unbelievable that this man assumes that every woman would do what he suggests. In tears she finally tells her mother. How could anyone accept any of this as factual information? Again, I don’t know where he gets this stuff, her word is accepted? Really? Hospital personnel cannot and do not make assessments on whether a woman is raped or not. They do a rape kit. That’s all. They can provide information on where to go for help and can offer them a way to call law enforcement. That’s it.

What proof would be needed early on?

Reporting the rape to a law enforcement agency is needed. Any hospital emergency room will handle this. If done within a day or two, she can be examined, given medicine for sexually transmitted diseases and counseled. Her word will rarely be questioned. But if it is many days later after a missed period, her word may not be enough.

-Let’s look at why rapes aren’t reported. It is not due to the reasons Dr. Wilke claims. First, her word is never enough. Rape has to be proven in court. As a rape victim I can personally attest to the treatment of rape victims by law enforcement and in court. Today it is not as bad, there has been significant improvement by the police in the attitude about rape but it is still not good. I, like most women, are subjected to their personal life being put on trial. Whether or not they are virgins, whether or not they are have had several sexual partners, even how they dress and the places the frequent. I don’t care if you are a prostitute in the middle of having sex, if at any point you say no or stop and the man does not it is rape. REGARDLESS.

What percentages of rape pregnancies are aborted?

Less than half. The balances carry the baby to term. In one study of 37 rape pregnancies, 28 carried to term.

What is her chief complaint?

Perhaps, surprisingly, it is not the fact that she is pregnant. Her chief complaint is “how other people treat her.” This should be very sobering to everyone. How is she treated? Do others understand the trauma she has experienced, and love and support her? Or, do they avoid her and act as if it was partly her fault, or worse? Just think, if all such victims were given generous love and support, many more than at present would carry their babies to term.

-I would like to know how many women feel that way, seriously. And again, he offers so much love and support.

What is she could not cope with raising the child?

We must let these women know that it is all right to feel that way. We truly understand. That does not mean, however, that the baby is unwanted. There are innumerable arms outstretched, asking for a child to love. Any number of couples will want the child. She should be supported and encouraged if she chooses to place the child in a loving adoptive home.

-Let me point out the practical here. Who is going to pay for the prenatal care?

What of incest?

Incest is intercourse by a father with his daughter, uncle with niece, etc. It usually involves a sick man, often a sick mother who frequently knows it’s happening (even if not consciously admitting it), and an exploited child. Fortunately, pregnancy is not very common. When incest does occur, however, it is seldom reported and, when reported, is hard to prove. Most pregnancies from incest have a very different dynamic than from rape and must be counseled in a very different manner.

Even strongly pro-abortion people, if they approach an incest case professionally, must be absolutely convinced before advising abortion, for abortion is not only an assault on the young mother, who may well, be pregnant with a “love object”, but it may completely fail to solve the original problem. It is also unusual for wisdom to dictate anything but adoptive placement of the baby.

Love object?

When pregnancy does occur, it is often an attempt to end the relationship. In a twisted sort of way, however, the father is a love object. In one study, only 3 of 13 child-mothers had any negative feelings toward him.

In incest is pregnancy common?

No. “Considering the prevalence of teenage pregnancies in general, incest treatment programs marvel at the low incidence of pregnancy from incest. “Several reports agree at 1% or less.

How does the incest victim feel about being pregnant?

For her, it is a way to stop the incest; a way to unite mother and daughter, a way to get out of the house. Most incestuous pregnancies, if not pressured, will not get abortions. “As socially inappropriate as incest and incestuous pregnancies are, their harmful effects depend largely upon reaction of others.

-This is hard to even give a response to. There is usually a sick man involved? Really? And the presumption that there is usually a sick woman, ie the mother, who doesn’t do anything is just more evidence of his attitude towards women in general. To suggest that the victim gets pregnant as a way of stopping the incest or to reunite her with her sick mother…wow. To say that 3 out of 13 victims had negative feelings toward him? Again where does he get this stuff? Victims of incest, especially daughters raped by their fathers are confused by the entire issue. I blame Christianity and those in society who have for hundreds of years said that one should honor they father, obey thy father etc. And these victims not understanding what is happening to them because the father usually convinces them that is how fathers love their daughters, or they say it is because they are bad or they threaten harm to someone the victim loves if she tells.

-And incest can be between brother and sister and cousins, and ‘socially inappropriate’? How about unacceptable and illegal.

-This man and his large following are dangerous. When I don’t understand where they get their ideas from, and how anyone could possibly believe any of this, all I have to do is remember that they are Christians, that believe Adam and Eve and Cain populated the earth.

Same Sex Marriage


The issue which dictates law concerning same sex marriage violates civil rights, the right to freedom of religion, 0r the right to not be religious.

The definition of marriage that dictates social standards and federal law is a Christian definition and only a Christian definition. It is not an ideal, it is not a belief it is scripture. It is right out of the Bible.

The Bible states very clearly that homosexuality is a mortal sin. The Bible is very clear about the punishment for women who have sex out of wedlock. The Bible is absolute about the condemnation of bastards born of that sin.

The Bible has specific ‘laws’ imposed upon a woman should she become a widow concerning who may marry, allowing that man to choose not to marry her while denying her the right to refuse or choose another.

The Bible even goes so far as to command a raped woman to marry the man who violated her if he so chooses. And if the Rapist chooses not to marry the now disgraced woman she is now unclean and cannot marry another.

The reason Polygamy ‘laws’ are not enforced is because the Bible dictates a man’s right to have more than one wife. Of course the Bible also dictates a woman does not have the right to demand monogamy and she can have only one husband. This practice is protected by our Constitution.

Freedom of Religion

(Let’s not overlook the fact that this protected religious right violates federal laws against marrying minor, federal laws against denying these minors education past the 7th or 8th grade).

The effects of imposing this Christian belief as law dictate Insurance laws, medical and life, it defines parental rights over minor children of divorced parents, it regulates state assistance for children of parents who live below the poverty line and denies these same children the protection from an abusive parent granted parental rights by default through marriage.

The law doesn’t even recognize the legality of a marriage not consummated because the Bible allows for annulment if was not.

Tax laws are written and defined by marriages, power of attorney is defined by marriage, and judicial process is carried out as defined by marriage.

Did I forget anything?

Christians must not be allowed to force their doctrine upon me. Christians must not be allowed to manipulate the laws to force their doctrine upon me. Christians must not be allowed to deny me the right to live my personal life as I choose because of their religion. THEIR RELIGION NOT MINE.

The fact that it is even a topic of discussion infuriates me to no end….

“Jesus died for your sins, not mine”. Patty Smith

Racial Profiling


When it comes to illegal immigration we here in Arizona have been through it all and then some. Whether you like or hate our Sheriff Joe here in Phoenix you have to admit he is a force to be reckoned with. He is currently on trial along with some of his officers for racial profiling illegal immigrants from Mexico. From Mexico is the key phrase here. How can anyone in law enforcement enforcing SB1070 possibly do their job when illegals are crying racial profiling? Really? When you are looking for illegal immigrants from Mexico…ask Mexicans for papers. How can they not racially profile? Why would they ask a white person if they have proof they are not here illegally from Mexico? Guess what they wouldn’t. Illegal immigrants from Mexico are guess what…Mexican.

Pat Robertson Suggests Beating Insubordinate Wife


Pat Robertson, on Monday’s 700 Club, responds to a viewer’s cry for help concerning his wife in his usual fucked up Christian way.

Where do I begin? I am left speechless by this ignorant man once again. And once again this man fills me with dread and a sense of despair. How can it be that our country, the world actually adhere to Christianity and it’s ‘leaders’?

Government is not run by law, by politics, by democrats and republicans, by monarchs or the people. It is and has been since our government and European government has been in existence, run by Christians.

We are no longer a population of uneducated illiterate people. For 1500 years the Church managed to keep the people from knowing how to read Latin. For 1500 years scripture was written in Latin. For 1500 years the Church told the people what the Bible said and no one questioned it. For 1500 years on Clergy was ‘allowed’ to read the Bible. For 1500 years they had complete control. For the past 5oo years the populace has become educated, women too, and the Bible has been written in English. For the past 500 years anyone, even women have been ‘allowed’ to read the Bible for themselves. For the past 500 years we have still allowed the Church it’s authority and dared not defy it. For the past 500 years the populace has asked questions. For the past 500 years the Church has not answered.

The Church still influences, controls, governs and oppresses.

Christianity should be illegal and Church should be held accountable for Crimes against humanity and it should be against the law for Christians to hold public office, positions of authority or be in law enforcement. They are ignorant haters who shouldn’t be allowed to teach or to preach.

Female Genital Mutilation


There are four classifications for this procedure.

1. Clitoridectomy: partial or total removal of the clitoris (a small, sensitive and erectile part of the female genitals) and, in very rare cases, only the prepuce (the fold of skin surrounding the clitoris).

2. Excision: partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, with or without excision of the labia majora (the labia are “the lips” that surround the vagina).

3. Infibulation: narrowing of the vaginal opening through the creation of a covering seal. The seal is formed by cutting and repositioning the inner, or outer, labia, with or without removal of the clitoris.

4. Other: all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, e.g. pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterizing the genital area.

This ‘procedure’ is usually performed on girls between the ages of 5 and 10 years old. It is done in the girl’s home or the home of a female relative. It is performed by a female relative with other females holding the girl down while a kitchen knife, a shaving blade (used), a piece of glass or even the top to a can is used to do the cutting. No anesthesia is used, not even a topical, and no antibiotics are given to prevent infection.

In a large percentage of women the vaginal opening is sewn almost completely closed. The ‘opening’ is about the size of a pencil eraser, which results in it taking up to 30 minutes to urinate and several days (after menstruation ends) for the blood to slowly drip out. The diseases and infections cause constant pain and sometimes death.

When the girl is married off to the man of her father’s choosing he is presented with a penknife, or worse, as a wedding gift which he will use to open his wife to consummate the marriage. If the husband has to go away a night or more she is sewn shut again until he cuts her open when he comes home.

A percentage of the time the vaginal closing is cut minutes before childbirth though most women are left to endure the baby passing through this small opening only to have whatever vaginal skin wasn’t ripped and torn stretched and used to sew her vagina shut again almost immediately afterwards.

The belief that has been held for countless generations is thus. Female ‘circumcision’ is medically necessary because if not done the female clitoris would grow to hang below a woman’s knees. If circumcision is not done, a child’s head that touches the clitoris during child birth the child will contract a deadly disease. If circumcision is not done and if the man’s penis touched the clitoris during sex he will contract a disease that could make him sterile.

The belief is that if this procedure is not performed the women will not be able to control their sexual desire. In the Muslim world a unmarried woman that loses her virginity is not able to be married off. Being married is about the only security these women can hope for. If a woman that has not has this procedure will be unable to be faithful to her husband. It is common for married men who must be away from their wives for a night or more to sew their wives shut until they return only to slice them open again to have sex. Most of the men won’t marry a woman unless she has been circumcised.

The custom is so embedded in culture than separating the two is almost impossible to do. Middle Eastern countries and a large percent of African countries practice the custom and it is not only accepted but expected.

But this horrific procedure doesn’t just happen ‘somewhere else’. It happens here in America. And it is protected by The Constitution. It is Freedom of Religion. It is only a crime if the girl is under the age of 18. Since the average age of the girls who have this done is between 5 and 10 years old how many cases do you think are reported? I doubt any at all.

I get a pit in my stomach at the knowledge that the Supreme Court of the United States upholds this claim of Religious Freedom. Any and all educated people, I doubt any uneducated ones could ever believe this shit! We know our clitorises don’t grow to be below the knee, so what if it did what are the men afraid our clit’s will be longer than their penis’s? We know that the clitoris does not give babies or men’s penis’s a disease. The lifelong health issues these women endure alone is enough to stop it. And so what if they become so horny they sleep around? That is not against the law. Neither is practicing you’re own religion different from that of your family, ancestors or homeland. This is denial of one’s right to freedom of religion. We know that there are absolutely no medical benefits to this procedure.

And last time I checked performing surgery, which is what this is, in your kitchen with the lid to a tin can is a violent crime!

How can this happen? And I am not associating female circumcision to male circumcision in the way that one is okay and the other is not. Nor am I saying that they are the same. They are separate issues. If one or many or all laws apply to both then apply the laws. But if one law applies to one and not the other then that law shouldn’t apply to either one. I am not going to say that there are no laws that apply to female genital mutilation because there are more than one. It is a sex crime, it is a violent crime, and it is a crime against humanity

Constitutional Protection of Haters


When idiots, dangerous idiots, like God Hates Fags Dot Com people are protected by the United States Constitution which gives them the right to protest at military funerals, any other funerals and have the right to stomp on, piss on the American Flag while harassing families of dead soldiers and be anti-American in their views of our military then amend the fucking Constitution. The beauty of the Constitution is that was written to be changed. To be changed as our country grew and as we learned how to govern ourselves. Our forefathers never encountered nor probably imagined there would be American citizens and Church leaders action in such an embarrassing and fucked up way.

Now we now assholes like this exist put it in the Constitution that ANY AND ALL HATE PROPAGANDA AND PUBLIC DEMONSTRATION OF HATE IS NOT PROTECTED BY OUR CONSTITUTION

A Tyrannical God


Let me start by saying that I am not an Atheist. I believe in a God like idea. I don’t see God as a ‘being’, a ‘thing’, a ‘higher power’, or an ‘entity’. I don’t worship nature and do not follow traditional pagan ideologies. I see Physics as (for lack of a better word) God, a God without malice, bias, personality, intent or purpose, and without gender.

I do not like the Christian God. The Christian God is angry, hateful, jealous and tyrannical. He is like Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Sudam Hussan or any other mass murdering tyrant in human history. He flooded the world because mankind him angry. He threatens death and condemnation to all who do not worship him or follow his commands. He punishes and tortures his faithful followers. He tests the faith of mankind with disease and famine and inflicts pain on children to test their parents. He taunts man. He gave us free will but punishes those who exercise it. He made us with sexual desire but condemns those who act upon it. He made us in his own image but insisted we are shameful of our bodies. He refuses Heaven to non-baptized children. He gave us intellect but does not allow for the pursuit of knowledge. He demands obedience but does not reward for it, at least not in this life time. He tells us we are all sinners yet promises Heaven upon death to those who confess their sins and Hell for those who do not. He causes us pain and suffering in our lifetime with promises of peace and love after death yet condemns those who choose to take their own lives. He demands us to commit murder of those who do not worship him but condemns murderers. He is jealous but condemns those who commit the sin of jealousy. He gets angry and destroys but tells us it’s a sin to do so ourselves.

Christians who try to live a life of love, tolerance and forgiveness may be following the teachings of Jesus but they are not listening to God’s commands. Jesus is a contradiction of his father. God is hateful, intolerant, unforgiving, jealous and vengeful. I sometimes wonder if he didn’t allow his only son to be crucified because Jesus didn’t do as he commanded. God commands the death of non-believers, he punishes prostitutes and beggars and he demands he be the only God mankind worships. Jesus must have really angered him by having his own followers.

And just a closing thought, if God is all-powerful, all-knowing and omnipotent why doesn’t he stop Satan from all he does? He has the power too, he chooses not to because he is cruel.

Hobby Lobby sues President Obama


Hobby Lobby is just one of many businesses to sue the President over ‘preventative services’. Basically laws have been passed making it mandatory for employer’s health insurance coverage to include morning after pills and birth control pills. Hobby Lobby is suing on the grounds that it is unconstitutional to make a business go against its religious beliefs. I have one question here, does Hobby Lobby only hire Christians? If not then aren’t they violating employee’s right to not be Christian? I fail to see how this and any other religious groups are being asked to go against their beliefs. If one believes that birth control is a sin then don’t use it. If those whose beliefs are that it is wrong to use these pills were being forced to use them then okay, but this is not the case. I don’t see anywhere in the constitution where businesses are protected in their right to impose the owner’s religion on its employees. If Hobby Lobby doesn’t hire non-Christians then they are breaking the law, an employer isn’t even allowed to ask what religion an employee is. And then there is the issue of how does an employer know what prescriptions any employee has or gets covered by insurance or not? Isn’t that confidential? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” — The First Amendment

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 845 other followers

Post Calendar

April 2017
M T W T F S S
« Feb    
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
%d bloggers like this: