Salt and Fire


This film was directed by Werner Herzog. I know him from his film Dinotasia but he does a variety of off the cuff films that bring awareness to various historical events.  Lawrence Krauss has a supporting role in the film, his film debut was quite entertaining.

The films intention was to bring awareness to climate change. This was meant to be a different point of view than the film Before The Flood but about the same subject of climate change.

I found the film hard to follow. I was left with a feeling of ‘what was that all about’. With the dialogue that followed I understood what Herzog was aiming for but I personally felt he fell short. Jeffrey Sachs was also on stage for the dialogue, he is an economist who currently works in Washington with Congress providing advice that isn’t very often listened to regarding the need for funding to fight climate change. He was very outspoken about the refusal to acknowledge this disaster on Capitol Hill. Krauss was as I said entertaining in the film and I loved it.

It was worth going to see because Krauss was in it but I didn’t think much of the film otherwise to be honest. Still a great cause to bring awareness to climate change and props to Krauss for doing so.

19243327_10214004907425165_4525867715385963355_o

Online Sellers of Firearms Trust Buyer To Be Honest About Felonies


This is from a gun broker online site, It is in the list they provide on how to buy from them. The key words here are the last sentence…..

“Anyone who is legally allowed to own firearms, ammunition, knives, and gun accessories is allowed to buy or sell them here. It is your responsibility to be in compliance with all Federal, state, and local laws when using this site.”

Really just take someones word for whether or not they are a convicted felon? Really?
You know, when serving someone buys alcohol the seller is equally responsible if not more, they are required to see verification of age with a photo ID. When you go to a Casino they are required to do the same. If either of those places is found to have neglected to ask for a photo id, found to accept one that states the customer is not of legal age or presents an ID that is not considered valid the seller is held responsible.
Jesus Christ this country has it shit bass ackwards.
The loop hole is here, the online dealer doesn’t have to do a background check because it is not handing the gun to the buyer directly, they ship the purchased weapon to a local gun store that has a Federal Firearm License (which they do require a copy is sent to them to put on file). The buyer then goes to that store and picks up the gun. The local gun store does not have to to a background check because they technically aren’t selling the gun, they just have a package that they haven’t opened to hand to the buyer. The buyer only has to show a printed receipt with the package number to pick it up, no photo ID required. Not even proof of age. The only stipulation is that the laws of the state shipped to are followed.
For instance the state of Arizona only prohibits the shipment of stun guns and tasers.
Now, if the local dealer doesn’t even know what is in the package, as they do not open it, then again trust is placed in the buyer to be following the laws of the state when ordering the gun. The online seller is not responsible for not shipping forbidden weapons, buyer is trusted to check the their state laws before buying and trusted to not buy anything on the prohibited list.
I don’t even have the words for the anger this ‘Really’? factor.

No Representation Without Taxation


The Revolutionary war began when Americans refused to pay taxes without being represented. They coined the phrase ‘No Taxation Without Representation’.

Well I think it is high time and equally valid to state that there should be No Representation Without Taxation.

 

To argue that religious institutions aren’t represented is absolutely not true. To use as an argument for this that we have a separation of church and state due to the First Amendment is equally false. There is no separation. And the First Amendment was written to protect religion from government not to protect government from religion.

Let me give you a good example;

Congress has a Congressional Prayer Caucus, a Chaplain of Congress (with an office in the Capitol) elected by Congress and paid with tax payers money. Military Chaplains are also paid with federal tax dollars. How again is this the separation of Church and State? How is this not a violation of the First Amendment? It isn’t.

Congress has had a Chaplain since 1774, no that is not a typo, the office of House and Senate Chaplain came to be before the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration Independence was written.

Here are the requirements for Tax Exempt Status per the IRS

Tax-Exempt Status

Churches and religious organizations, like many other charitable organizations, qualify for exemption from federal income tax under IRC Section 501(c)(3) and are generally eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions. To qualify for tax-exempt status, the organization must meet the following requirements (covered in greater detail throughout this publication):

  •  the organization must be organized and operated exclusively for religious, educational, scientific or other charitable purposes;
  •  net earnings may not inure to the benefit of any private individual or shareholder;
  •  no substantial part of its activity may be attempting to influence legislation;
  •  the organization may not intervene in political campaigns;
  • and n the organization’s purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental public policy.

IRC Section 501(c)(3)

All organizations, including churches and religious organizations, must abide by certain rules:  

  • their net earnings may not inure to any private shareholder or individual;
  •  they must not provide a substantial benefit to private interests;
  •  they must not devote a substantial part of their activities to attempting to influence legislation;
  •  they must not participate in, or intervene in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office;
  • and n the organization’s purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental public policy.

 

Congress even wrote special legislation regarding the IRS’ right to audit churches and religious institutions;

Special Rules Limiting IRS Authority to Audit a Church

Tax Inquiries and Examinations of Churches

Congress has imposed special limitations, found in section 7611 of the Internal Revenue Code, on how and when the IRS may conduct civil tax inquiries and examinations of churches. The IRS may begin a church tax inquiry only if an appropriate high-level Treasury official reasonably believes, on the basis of facts and circumstances recorded in writing, that an organization claiming to be a church or convention or association of churches may not qualify for exemption, may be carrying on an unrelated trade or business (within the meaning of IRC § 513), may otherwise be engaged in taxable activities or may have entered into an IRC § 4958 excess benefit transaction with a disqualified person.

Now let’s look at how much this elected office pays;

Total Salary Expenditures

 

I fail to see how being an elected member of Congress does not influence legislation.

From an article by Paul Singer, USA Today;

“We do what we can to make sure that legislation emerges with what we believe to be American, Christian values,” said caucus member John Fleming, R-La. “We believe that a democracy is only functional if there is a certain level of virtuousness among the nation. Freedom also requires a certain responsibility and that requires a certain moral code. The moral code that we as Americans have lived by for over 200 years is based on what? The Ten Commandments.” 

Rep Randy Forbes VA  and a dozen other Prayer Caucus members traveled to North Carolina in March to launch an initiative called PrayUSA, asking government officials and other to sign a resolution calling for prayer. The initiative is part of “a tactical strategy to effectively challenge the growing anti-faith movement in our Country,” the foundation says.

And the foundation blog advocates strongly for the defense of conservative Christians like Kentucky clerk Kim Davis, who was briefly jailed for refusing to sign marriage licenses for gay couples.

“Criminalizing Christianity is not the America envisioned by our Founding Fathers,” reads a blog post on the foundation website about the Kim Davis saga. “Sadly, the balance of power in our country is being undermined within the legislative branch and increasingly supplanted by both executive fiat and judicial tyranny. The government was never designed to replace God and therefore, does not have the authority or right to redefine the laws of nature or of nature’s God…..  We are fighting for our freedoms—silence and inactivity will leave us vulnerable and open to further attack. Christian…it is time for us to wake up and be engaged!”

How is this not influencing legislation?

 

 

While the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the a House and Senate Office of the Chaplain stating that it is a tradition and should be respected it is important to remember that slavery was considered a ‘tradition’ as well.

MARSH v. CHAMBERS, 463 U.S. 783 (1983)

CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER delivered the opinion of the Court.(1)

 A statute providing for the payment of these chaplains was enacted into law on September 22, 1789.

Clearly the men who wrote the First Amendment Religion Clauses did not view paid legislative chaplains and opening prayers as a violation of that Amendment, for the practice of opening sessions with prayer has continued without interruption ever since that early session of Congress.

It can hardly be thought that in the same week Members of the First Congress voted to appoint and to pay a chaplain for each House and also voted to approve the draft of the First Amendment** for submission to the states, they intended the Establishment Clause of the Amendment to forbid what they had just declared acceptable. In applying the First Amendment to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, it would be incongruous to interpret that Clause as imposing more stringent First Amendment limits on the states than the draftsmen imposed on the Federal Government.

This unique history leads us to accept the interpretation of the First Amendment draftsmen who saw no real threat to the Establishment Clause arising from a practice of prayer similar to that now challenged. We conclude that legislative prayer presents no more potential for establishment than the provision of school transportation, beneficial grants for higher education, or tax exemptions for religious organizations.

A paragraph from writings by James Madison point out that Madison was concerned about respecting the religious rights of all religious sects;

JAMES MADISON: The tenets of the chaplains elected by the majority shut the door of worship against the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain? To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor.

Though Madison did see the payment of the Chaplain by the National Treasury as unconstitutional, what he deemed a violation of the First Amendment was the appointment of a Protestant, not the appointment of a Chaplain.

 

Congressional Prayer Caucus; Violating The First Amendment


Congressman J. Randy Forbes, Founder & Co-Chairman
Senator James Lankford, Co-Chairman

Congressman Robert Aderholt
Congressman Brian Babin
Congressman Andy Barr
Congressman Gus Bilirakis
Congressman Rob Bishop
Congresswoman Diane Black
Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn
Congressman Jim Bridenstine
Congressman Bradley Byrne
Congressman John Carter

Congressman Jason Chaffetz
Congressman Mike Coffman
Congressman Doug Collins

Congressman Mike Conaway
Congressman Kevin Cramer
Congressman Rick Crawford 
Congressman Jeff Duncan
Congresswoman Renee Ellmers

Congressman Stephen Fincher
Congressman John Fleming
Congresswoman Virginia Foxx

Congressman Trent Franks

Congressman Scott Garrett

Congressman Louie Gohmert
Congressman Bob Goodlatte
Congressman Morgan Griffith

Congressman Gregg Harper
Congressman Andy Harris
Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler
Congressman French Hill
Congressman Richard Hudson
Congressman Tim Huelskamp
Congressman Bill Huizenga
Congressman Randy Hultgren
Congressman Robert Hurt
Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins
Congressman Bill Johnson

Congressman Sam Johnson

Congressman Walter Jones

Congressman Jim Jordan

Congressman Mike Kelly
Congressman Steve King

Congressman John Kline
Congressman Doug LaMalfa

Congressman Doug Lamborn
Congressman Bob Latta

Congressman Daniel Lipinski

Congressman Patrick McHenry
Congressman David McKinley
Congressman Jeff Miller
Congressman John Moolenaar

Congressman Randy Neugebauer
Congresswoman Kristi Noem
Congressman Alan Nunnelee

Congressman Stevan Pearce
Congressman Scott Perry 

Congressman Robert Pittenger
Congressman Joe Pitts
Congressman Mike Pompeo
Congressman Bill Posey 

Congressman Tom Price
Congressman Dave Reichert
Congressman Reid Ribble
Congressman Scott Rigell
Congresswoman Martha Roby
Congressman Phil Roe

Congressman Mike Rogers
Congressman Peter Roskam

Congressman Dennis Ross

Congressman Ed Royce
Congressman Steve Russell
Congressman Paul Ryan
Congressman Matt Salmon

Congressman Steve Scalise
Congressman Adrian Smith
Congressman Chris Smith

Congressman Lamar Smith

Congressman Steve Stivers
Congressman Marlin Stutzman
Congressman Lee Terry
Congressman Glenn Thompson
Congressman Mike Turner

Congressman Fred Upton
Congressman Tim Walberg
Congressman Randy Weber
Congressman Joe Wilson

Congressman Robert Wittman

Congressman Todd Young

Christian Congress, Christian Nation


First Prayer of the Continental Congress, 1774

The Prayer in the First Congress, A.D. 1774The Prayer in the First Congress, A.D. 1774

O Lord our Heavenly Father, high and mighty King of kings, and Lord of lords, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers on earth and reignest with power supreme and uncontrolled over all the Kingdoms, Empires and Governments; look down in mercy, we beseech Thee, on these our American States, who have fled to Thee from the rod of the oppressor and thrown themselves on Thy gracious protection, desiring to be henceforth dependent only on Thee. To Thee have they appealed for the righteousness of their cause; to Thee do they now look up for that countenance and support, which Thou alone canst give. Take them, therefore, Heavenly Father, under Thy nurturing care; give them wisdom in Council and valor in the field; defeat the malicious designs of our cruel adversaries; convince them of the unrighteousness of their Cause and if they persist in their sanguinary purposes, of own unerring justice, sounding in their hearts, constrain them to drop the weapons of war from their unnerved hands in the day of battle!

Be Thou present, O God of wisdom, and direct the councils of this honorable assembly; enable them to settle things on the best and surest foundation. That the scene of blood may be speedily closed; that order, harmony and peace may be effectually restored, and truth and justice, religion and piety, prevail and flourish amongst the people. Preserve the health of their bodies and vigor of their minds; shower down on them and the millions they here represent, such temporal blessings as Thou seest expedient for them in this world and crown them with everlasting glory in the world to come. All this we ask in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son and our Savior.

Amen.

Reverend Jacob Duché
Rector of Christ Church of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
September 7, 1774, 9 o’clock a.m.

 

This was the first prayer said before a Congressional session. Here is the prayer they said on the 15th of May 2015;

05/15/2015
Reverend Patrick J. Conroy, S.J.

We give You thanks, O God, for giving us another day.

We ask Your blessing upon this assembly and upon all to whom the authority of government is given.

The issues of these days and in coming months remain complicated and potentially divisive. Endow each Member with wisdom and equanimity, that productive policies and solutions might be reached for the benefit of our Nation.

Please send Your spirit of peace upon those areas of our world where violence and conflict endure, and threaten to multiply. May all Your children learn to live in peace.

And, may all that is done within the people’s House this day be for Your greater honor and glory.

Amen.

Tell me again we are not a Christian Nation.

Presidential Thought of The Day That Tells Us What The President Really Thinks


From the Prayer Caucus government website https://forbes.house.gov/prayercaucus/

This ‘daily thought’ expresses the idea of America that has not changed since it’s founding with one small, cosmetic, and condescending guise of not only freedom of religion but of freedom from religion. It is meant to appease the secular and atheist population of These United States of America but it actually does in endorse her contempt, intolerance, and ‘holier than now’ moral superiority those of no faith. This daily thought is a reflection of what is thought daily by those of faith; what is assumed and presumed by those of faith; that everyone believes in god not matter how or where they worship him and even if they don’t worship him; but believing him none the less. Sure our gracious founding fathers fought and died for their religious freedom and for that freedom of fellow Americans taking oaths to protect this freedom at any and all costs while overlooking or perhaps even looking past the possibility of anyone wanting the freedom of no religion at all thus assuring no one could make them worship at all but no where, no where in any document written that gave birth to our nation and systems of laws and justice is there any promise or consideration made for someones right to not believe in god at all.

Read what Obama didn’t write down, hear what he didn’t say and think about what he thought. He thought he was being politically correct and including the secular and non-believers, I think he was excluding us.

My comments throughout are in red letters, yes, sarcastically like Jesus’ words.

05/07/2015

“Presidential Proclamation –– National Day of Prayer, 2015

NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER, 2015

– – – – – – –

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

When women and men of all backgrounds and beliefs are free to practice their faiths without fear or coercion, it bolsters our religious communities and helps to lift up diverse and vibrant societies throughout our world. In America, our Nation is stronger because we welcome and respect people of all faiths, he doesn’t say ‘and people of no faith’  and because we protect the fundamental right of all people to practice their faith how they choose, to change their faith, or to practice no faith at all, he doesn’t say or to have no faith at all and to do so free from persecution and discrimination he doesn’t say from exclusion or forced inclusion. Today, as we pause in solemn reflection, we celebrate the religious liberty the secular and non-believers don’t celebrate religious  liberty, we don’t have religion we cherish here at home, and we recommit to standing up for religious freedom around the world the secular and the non-believing would not commit to  standing up for religious freedom, many of us like my self who are anti-theists would only commit to not standing up for any of them or commit to standing against all of them.  .

For many of us, prayer is an important expression of faith –– an essential act of worship and a daily discipline that allows reflection, provides guidance, and offers solace. Through prayer we find the strength to do God’s work: to feed the hungry, care for the poor, comfort the afflicted, and make peace where there is strife. In times of uncertainty or tragedy, Americans offer humble supplications for comfort for those who mourn, for healing for those who are sick, and for protection for those who are in harm’s way. When we pray, we are reminded that we are not alone –– our hope is a common hope, our pain is shared, and we are all children of God. He isn’t acknowledging those of us who do not believe in god; a pretentious gesture meant to purposely say that even though they are morally superior to non-believer they graciously give all people consideration with absolute pity for us who just don’t know any better.  Those of us who do not believe in god do not share this common hope, those of us who do not believe in gad have a common hope that no one else would either, believers do not share our pain and they are the cause of ours; and no we are not all children of god. There is no god. 

Around the globe, too few know the protections we enjoy in America. Millions of individuals worldwide are subjected to discrimination, abuse, and sanctioned violence simply for exercising their religion or choosing not to claim a faith. Presumptuously condescendingly saying we have faith we just don’t claim to. Communities are threatened with genocide and driven from their homelands because of who they are or how they pray Once again excluding concern for those of us who are threatened with genocide and driven from our homelands because of who we are or that we don’t pray, stating consideration for those that do pray. The United States will continue to stand against these reprehensible attacks, work to end them, and protect religious freedom throughout the world Add another deliberate exclusion of the phrase protecting freedom from religion throughout the world.. And we remember those who are prisoners of conscience maybe just a hint of the suggestion that conscience belongs only to those that have faith; fair enough to say giving the deliberate restating repeatably this thought is of the faithful and or those of any faith; not of no faith–– who are held unjustly because of their faiths or beliefs Is this to say that there aren’t any non-believers who are held unjustly because or their lack of faith and no beliefs? –– and we will take every action within our power to secure their release again restating their is no power used to secure the release of non-believers being held captive by the faithful. .

In the face of tremendous challenges, prayer is a powerful force for peace, justice, and a brighter, more hopeful tomorrow. is this to say that us non-believers don’t want peace or worse that we prevent it? That we are unjust with no hope for or of tomorrow?  Today, as we join together in fellowship, we seek to see our own reflection in the struggle of others, to be our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers, and to keep faith –– in one another, in the promise of our Nation, and in the Almighty he had up until the Almighty. .

The Congress, by Public Law 100–307, as amended, has called on the President to issue each year a proclamation designating the first Thursday in May as a “National Day of Prayer.” Can we call upon him to issue a proclamation designating the second Thursday in May as a “National Day of No Prayer”?

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim May 7, 2015, as a National Day of Prayer. I invite the citizens of our Nation to give thanks, in accordance with their own faiths  How about we citizens thank ourselves in accordance with our own ideas, and consciences and consciences, for our many freedoms and blessings for our hard work, and I join all people of faith yet again an exclusion, maybe even a stand against of non-believers in asking for God’s continued guidance, mercy, and protection because we can’t ask god since we don’t believe in him; from their judging eyes don’t accept him and therefore aren’t worthy of his mercy and not deserving of his protection as we seek a more just world.Slightly suggesting we non-believers are un just. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this sixth day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand fifteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty–ninth.

BARACK OBAMA”

Is The Supreme Court Ruling On Hobby Lobby Right Or Wrong?


I know that my readers and those that know me will assume they know which side of this issue I am on. But they will be wrong.  I have never been shy about my contempt for religion and though this Supreme Court Ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby’s objection to the company insurance covering 4 kinds of  ‘contraception’ on grounds of protecting their religious freedom I don’t necessarily see this as a religious issue; and the Supreme Court doesn’t see it as only a religious issue, it is a moral one.

It is important to understand that the objection is not against all contraception, it is against Plan B (the morning after pill), Ella (which works up to 5 days after sex) and 2 different IUD’s (Intra Uterine Devices). The argument is that these are aborticides and not contraception. Though I can see their view on Plan B and Ella I do not agree that IUD’s are aborticides, none the less this is the argument.

Here is the section of the ruling that I find to be the most important;
(3) HHS argues that the connection between what the objecting parties must do and the end that they find to be morally wrong is too attenuated because it is the employee who will choose the coverage and contraceptive method she uses. But RFRA’s question is whether the mandate imposes a substantial burden on the objecting parties’ ability to conduct business in accordance with their religious beliefs.The belief of the Hahns and Greens implicates a difficult and important question of religion and moral philosophy, namely, the circumstances under which it is immoral for a person to perform an act that is innocent in itself but that has the effect of enabling or facilitating the commission of an immoral act by another. It is not for the Court to say that the religious beliefs of the plaintiffs are mistaken or unreasonable. In fact, this Court considered and rejected a nearly identical argument in Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 U. S. 707. The Court’s “narrow function . . . is to determine” whether the plaintiffs’ asserted religious belief reflects“an honest conviction,” id., at 716, and there is no dispute here that it does. Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U. S. 672, 689; and Board of Ed. of Central School Dist. No. 1 v. Allen, 392 U. S. 236, 248–249, distinguished. Pp. 35–38.

Let’s pull out this sentence and look at it on it’s own; The belief of the Hahns and Greens implicates a difficult and important question of religion and moral philosophy, namely, the circumstances under which it is immoral for a person to perform an act that is innocent in itself but that has the effect of enabling or facilitating the commission of an immoral act by another. From that sentence let’s pull out the words moral philosophy. 

I will say that my own personal views on abortion are very conflictive. I think that morally abortion is wrong except in cases of incest and rape. However I do agree with a woman’s right to choose, to a point. This all boils down to ‘when life begins’ dilemma. I am of the opinion that an embryo is not ‘alive’ but a fetus is, this means that after 8 weeks I think abortion is murder. I also feel that by 8 weeks there is no reason why a woman would not have made the decision to have a baby or not. That being said the difficulty lies in what is moral and what is immoral. I find it rather hypocritical of Christians to preach morality given the immoral acts of God throughout the Bible. However we happen to agree on the immorality of abortion, but disagree on when life begins. I admittedly commend the owners of Hobby Lobby for standing by their convictions.

BUT; when I pull out this sentence It is not for the Court to say that the religious beliefs of the plaintiffs are mistaken or unreasonable. I have to say hold on. It is this stance of the Court that enables acts like female genital mutilation to not be illegal. Morality must be judged when it is inflicted on another human being. I a woman wants to cut off her own clitoris that is her business, but when she cuts of the clitoris of another female this is immorality at it’s peak. The same applies to circumstances involving keeping someone alive by artificial means and a loved one wants to pull the plug but another loved one cries it is against their religion to do so. If the person being kept alive would not want to be kept alive that way then pull the plug, in turn if the person being kept alive had the religious belief that it would be wrong then don’t do it. This goes for acts of rape and incest as well as any oppression of any other human being or acts of violence against them. One cannot commit an immoral act upon ones self.

 

 

The Government Shutdown


I asked my 17 year old daughter, who is a senior depending on scholarships and student loans for college, this question “How do you feel about this shutdown knowing that there is a very good chance it will delay your starting college next year?” She responded with this “I asked my friend who didn’t know much about it what he thought. I explained to him that basically the Republican’s don’t like ObamaCare and that they wanted to remove contraception from the Act.” To which she said his response was “You mean the President is letting this happen over a couple of pills?”

Now I must take responsibility for some of my daughters lack of complete understanding. I am an old fed up feminist who is always feeding my daughters the injustices against women arguments. It is true that I firmly believe that women’s rights play a huge role in this fight because the Right Wing Republicans emphatically fight agianst our right to choose, against insurance covering the cost of contraception and against women’s equal rights in general. Not only does the Affordable Care Act cover those issues but it also for the first time in history make it illegal for insurance companies to charge women more than men for health insurance. Being a woman has always in a way been considered a pre-existing condition. Women need annual pabtsmears, annual mammograms, are likely to become pregnant at some point in their life requiring prenatal care and so on. I stand firm on my belief that this plays a major role in their posisition.

But, there is so much more to it than that. I am going to say what no one else has. It is no secret the Right Wingers hate Obama and will do whatever it takes to bring him down. Including making the repercussions of this shutdown his fault so he will go down in history with bad marks, but lets ask why they hate him so much. He is black. Plain and simple it is a race thing. Why else would his citizenship be continuously questioned? Why else would he be accused of being Muslim? Why else would being Muslim be a bad thing? These Right Wingers will do anything at the cost of anybody to make him look bad.

Why is it okay for Obama not to negotiate my daughter asked. Well first off it isn’t just him. The Senate refuses to negotiate as well. If the Tea Party is allowed to get away with this what’s next? A shutdown to try to appeal other laws they don’t like? Gay marriage? Abortion laws? Let’s not overlook the fact that they attached to the funding bill the Affordable Care Act that has already been voted on, passed and made into law. It has already gone into effect. There is nothing that the Senate or the President can do anyway. Let’s also not forget that the Tea Party hates government. They are the ones who are anti-American. They are the one’s acting like fascist tyrannical leaders who don’t give a damn about the population.

They are no better than terrorists.

In the past those who stood up for principles, for what was right did so at a dear cost to themselves and many. It has always been the great ones who were willing to lose everything to fight injustices. The Tea Party isn’t standing for any principle, for any just cause or for any point other than to make sure they hurt Obama at any cost.

 

The Middle Ground Is Where Gun Reform Is


It seems to me that the main point that is argued against imposing background checks when purchasing guns is the concern that the government will use the individuals information against them some how. There seems to be a mistrust of our government. I am not going to say there is no reason to mistrust nor am I going to say there is a reason to trust our government. That is not the issue here. So here’s my proposal. Appropriate federal funds to finance the NRA and let the NRA build and maintain the database with the information that is submitted for background checks. Let the NRA have access to information that flags felons, those on the terrorist watch list, those on the no fly list, those convicted of domestic  violence etc.

Problem Solved.

 

ACLU Profiles Joe Arpaio’s Officers As A Racial Profilers


The ACLU charges of Racial Profiling against Sheriff Joe Arpaio are discriminatory profiling in it’s own right against the  Sheriff’s department. They made this statement in regards to Arizona’ “show me your papers” law signed by Gov Brewer;

“The new law, which will not go into effect for more than 90 days, requires police agencies across Arizona to investigate the immigration status of every person they come across whom they have “reasonable suspicion” to believe is in the country unlawfully. To avoid arrest, citizens and immigrants will effectively have to carry their “papers” at all times. The law also makes it a state crime for immigrants to willfully fail to register with the Department of Homeland Security and carry registration documents. It further curtails the free speech rights of day laborers and encourages unchecked information sharing between government agencies.

“Forcing local police to demand people’s papers and arrest those who can’t immediately prove their status will do nothing to make us safer,” said Dan Pochoda, Legal Director of the ACLU of Arizona. “What it will do is divert scarce police resources to address false threats and force officers to prioritize immigration enforcement over all other public safety responsibilities”.

I will address rather lengthy views I have on this issue of immigration laws in the very near future. But for now I have a short but to the point question.

By saying that officers are going to neglect their other responsibilities or protecting other citizens from ‘real crimes’ that threaten our safety by ‘prioritizing’ immigration enforcement is assuming that they will racially profile just because the work for Joe Arpaio who  is known for tough immigration law enforcement, ‘immigration law’ being a key point. He is the Sheriff and these are ‘law enforcement’ officers.

Isn’t that it’s own form of ‘profiling’?

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.

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

Join 850 other followers

Post Calendar

August 2017
M T W T F S S
« Jul    
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  
%d bloggers like this: