Saturday, January 30, 2016

Ridiculous Statements From Trump Supporters

The top thing I am sick of hearing about Donald Trump is that he "tells it like it is" or "tells the truth."  These are very common statements from his supporters.  Of course, what it really means is that he is not afraid to say what's on his hateful mind and that he speaks even lies like he believes them as truth.

There's something else I'm really fed up hearing from Trump supporters, though.  I keep hearing, "He can't be bought."  "Trump is the only one who can't be bought."

Wow!  Ok people, let's think about this.  First of all, in case you didn't realize, Donald Trump is a billionaire.  A billionaire.  With a 'b.' (If he really is.)  In his own words, he's so very rich.  Does he not keep reminding us that he's filthy rich?!  So when people say something like, "People can't buy off Trump," I can't help but think, "Are you stupid?"  Bribes appeal much more to those who don't have billions of dollars.  Trump doesn't need more money, so he probably couldn't care less.  However, he gets away with all the hateful shit he spews out of his mouth because he's rich and because there are plenty of hateful-minded people to loyally support him.

On the other hand, Bernie Sanders isn't being bought off by anyone.  He's only receiving small donations from individuals.  He can speak loudly against the wealthy and corrupt corporations who are pretty much buying our government because he's not being paid by them.  Not a penny!

Then there are people who share how much they admire Trump for being so successful.  Oh yes, well it does make it a lot easier when one's father leaves him with a large inheritance to invest.  Any of us can do that.  He hasn't done any better than any of the rest of us would have if we'd have inherited the same and invested it.  I like how this guy explains it.  He's got people with intelligence to run his companies for him.  That's a big help as well.

Once again, if we look at Bernie Sanders, we see that his level of success, in comparison, is worthy of admiration and appreciation.  He's far from being a billionaire, but he had immigrant parents and lived in poverty growing up, and he's become a U.S. senator and is running for president.  He's come a long a way.  To see him talk about that during the Democratic Town Hall was very moving for me.

Enough with the ridiculous statements about the hateful billionaire buffoon!

Terminating Life and Donating "Baby Parts"

Shortly after the huge scandal carried out by deceitful fraudsters David Daleiden and Sandra Merrit who obtained fake ids, recorded employees from Planned Parenthood, then deceptively edited the videos to make it appear that Planned Parenthood profited from selling fetal body parts, something dawned on me.  Of course, I initially was shocked and hoped that it wasn't true.  I watched some clips myself and then looked into the matter and found that it was only referring to the fees paid for storage, handling and shipping the human organs to the researchers. Everything was done legally. 

However, I have many very right-winged individuals on my Facebook list, and varying persons were posting hateful things toward Planned Parenthood and one of the women—medical services director Deborah Nucatola—in a video Daleiden produced.  This is exactly what the two fraudsters hoped would happen.  I suspected something was up very early on, though, because the prices discussed in the video I watched were quite low—$100 at the very most—for human body part sales.  That is what prompted me to look further into the matter.

The reality is that some of the women getting abortions in the second trimester (sometimes to save her own life or show mercy on her child; sometimes not) choose to donate the organs to science.  It's legal, and Planned Parenthood does not profit.  They only charge the storage, handling and shipping fee.

Even after these facts came to life, a lot of the extreme anti-abortion people still believe Planned Parenthood is in the wrong.  They keep saying, even now, that Planned Parenthood is murdering babies and selling baby parts. 

Then I experienced my stunning revelation.  In those people's eyes I must be a monster.  In 2005, I chose to terminate life support for my precious second-born infant son who was in a persistent vegetative state, quite nearly completely brain dead, as he could not even draw more than one breath on his own.  In addition, my husband and I were asked whether we wanted to donate his organs, if they were eligible.  We both agreed that we wanted to donate his organs.  It turned out that he was ineligible.  This is probably because the cause of his state was unknown, and an autopsy was required by law.  It may also have been due to the fact that he went so long without ample oxygen that his organs were not as good as someone who was injured in a car accident and more quickly was put on life support.  Regardless, we had wanted to donate his organs for a greater good.  In that case, his organs would have been donated to other people who needed organs for long-term life.  In the case of aborted fetal tissue, researchers have worked with those stem cells to try to find cures for diseases in order to enhance afflicted persons' quality of life.  They've also been used in the production of some vaccines.

If we'd have been able to donate Asher's organs, the hospital would have received fees for the work of the transplant team's harvesting the organs, storing them, and shipping them to where they were needed.  The people needing the organs would have paid the fees.  Would that have made Children's Mercy Hospital an evil entity who ends infants' lives and sells their "baby parts?"  Get real.

It's really true, though, that some of those same extremist people demonize those of us who have had to deal with tough issues surrounding life support of a loved one.  These are people who either don't have all the facts or ignore them, or these are people who simply love to stick to their "pro-life" law in its letter while ignoring the greater spirit of the law of life. They look over mercy, compassion, and life quality in order to keep the letter.  They'd rather see a fetus or an infant suffer out their hours or days or weeks or months in an extremely sick and/or disabled condition just to say they supported life (in the letter) or "left it to God" (a monster?) than to show mercy and compassion by cutting the child's misery short.  They do the same thing for elderly people or people of any age who are on life support but have no quality of life, who do not even know what's going on around them or who are suffering unimaginable pain that the strongest drugs no longer ease.  I saw such people speak their minds concerning the young woman Brittany Maynard, who suffered with a deadly brain tumor and chose to end her life with legally assisted-suicide drugs when the pain became too great.  This horrified me.  How was it Godly to condemn Brittany to more suffering with the same end result?  How is that following the law Jesus spoke of that was so important, the one of loving your neighbor and showing mercy and compassion?

Jesus pointed out that some people basically say, "Fuck mercy.  This violates the pro-life law."  But Jesus said they violate the weightier matters of the law, such as mercy, justice, and faithfulness (Matt. 23:23).  The spirit of the law is more important than the letter.  Those who are always stuck on some letter are not being guided by mercy and compassion inside themselves.  Their hearts aren't bleeding with empathy and crying out with compassion.

People who cling to a law in its letter often breed all sorts of ugliness.  They fail to recognize gray areas in life.  They lack the capacity to weigh moral and ethical decisions, which leads to their acting out in evil ways and believing they did what was good. 

And as for the women who chose to abort several weeks into the second trimester for other than saving one's own life or to prevent the baby from future suffering due to defects, it's none of our business.  I do not like what some women abort for that late in the game.  I would not abort that late unless it was for an extreme reason.  A lot of others would not do so, either.  I didn't write this to debate the "right" and "wrong" reasons women abort at that stage, but I did so because some people think that any reason is wrong and that it's absolutely wrong to donate the organs and other fetal tissue to science. 

Now these people want to defund Planned Parenthood, declaring they are guilty of that of which they have officially been declared innocent.  This is a total outrage, not only because PP is innocent of the charges of selling baby parts, but the Hyde Amendment was signed into federal law in 1976, which already prohibits the federal funds given to the nonprofit Planned Parenthood for being used for abortion.  There are strict exceptions to this; Medicaid will cover abortion in cases of rape, incest, and the life or health of the mother.  In the vast majority of cases, if a person has Medicaid, he or she must pay out-of-pocket for an abortion just like everyone else.  They do try to help a woman get some financial assistance for an abortion, if your income is low, but if the person applies and qualifies, those funds come from private donations.  Only 3% of PP's services are abortion services, while most of the services consist of STD testing, cancer screenings, and contraceptives.  They also provide other services, like PAP smears for women, vasectomies for men, and sonograms for pregnant women.  So defunding Planned Parenthood would not affect the number of abortions women get.  The only thing it would do is make it difficult for women (and men) of low and moderate incomes to obtain the low-cost healthcare services that this nonprofit organization provides to millions of people each year. 

Please stop lying about Planned Parenthood, and stop condemning people for the serious decisions they make regarding life and death and for donating organs. 

Wednesday, January 27, 2016

America's Right Wing is Antichrist

I've pretty well always hated extreme right-wing ideas. I hated them as a Christian, and I hate them presently as an atheist. 

There were two articles I wrote several years ago, as a Christian, that I want to briefly mention.  One pointed out the error of a person being too extreme either to the right or to the left. The other discussed the fact that there are not always moral absolutes, as many self-proclaimed Christians like to insist.  I've grown and learned quite a bit in those six-plus years, so there would definitely be some improvements to those articles if I was to revise them.  Overall, though, I understood the dangers and evils of being an extremist and knew that those who claim that there are always moral absolutes do not follow a loving-heart-led moral code, but rather they stick to a rigid "letter of the law" mentality, therefore keeping the applicable written or oral law while breaking the higher law of mercy, justice, and faithfulness, just as the Jesus of the bible is purported to have said (Matt. 23:23-24).

In the United States we are gearing up for a presidential election, and as always, my husband and I have been watching the debates of both parties before the primary election.  I always find myself getting so angry and disgusted when watching the Republican debates.  I loathe the fact that they even name their party "Republican," for it totally takes away from my ability to proudly say that I am a republican—with a little 'r'—who supports the idea of a democratic republic as a form of government.  I enjoyed watching Ron Paul eight years ago, as he was the only person running on the Republican ticket who was worth voting for.  I was so happy to hear him that I went against my then-religious beliefs of voting and voted for him in the primary!  I didn't vote again after that, though my husband did vote for Obama in the general election.  I didn't love Obama at the time, but I will say that I was relieved that he did beat war-loving John McCain.

Unlike the Republican debates this go-around, the democratic debates are worth watching.  They tend to talk more about issues that matter a lot more, as they are able.  It seems they are not allowed to say much about climate change issues (the most important issue of all, in my strong opinion), because the questions they get do not include that topic.  But when they do manage to fit it in, it's pleasing to hear that some really want to do something about it, unlike the Republicans who will mock the fact we have a serious emergency and simply do not give a shit about doing anything about it.

We've been watching the debates over the last few months, and the Republicans only want to talk about how they want us to murder and destroy, to bulk up our military, to be the strongest warriors in the world, as if we are dominating dictators planning to force our will upon everyone else.  When they're not talking about that, they are literally bickering at each other like immature children.  It's extremely embarrassing, and I find myself wondering each time what citizens of other nations must be thinking if they watch it.

In contrast, there is no childish bickering in the democratic debates.  There may be some disagreements, since it is a debate, but they're respectful of each other and do not bicker back and forth, back and forth.  They debate the issues and point out their differences in opinion without disgraceful name-calling.

I thought the far right-wingers were evil-minded when I was a Christian, and nothing has changed.  It's despicable how they claim to be the "Christian" party, and yet they are nothing but anti-Christ.  They do not even know the Jesus of the bible, the most well-known believed-to-be Jewish "christ" or "messiah."  They certainly do not have his words written on their hearts; if they're programmed into their minds, it's only in a thoughtless memorization sort of way, not in any serious processing of what the words mean and accepting them as good and wise.

I disliked Marco Rubio from the very beginning.  In the very first debate we watched last year, he made it clear that he did not think abortion should even be allowed to save the life of a woman.  The act of imagining that as a reality for even a second gripped me with a feeling of fear and strong defense for my right to life.  Yet I'd be willing to bet he considers himself "pro-life."  Those people do not even know what pro-life means.  One thing is certain; he's very anti-abortion, even when abortion is the only way anyone is going to continue living.  I've known at least two women of whom I'm aware had their pregnancies terminated when their embryos were growing in one of their Fallopian tubes.  I've read numerous real-life stories of women who made the very difficult choice to terminate their second-trimester pregnancies, even those just a mere two weeks from viability, in order to not lose their own lives (and naturally also those of the fetuses).  The stories are very sad.  There are several reasons why a woman would need to abort to save her own life, including hemorrhage, pre-eclampsia that threatens a fatal stroke, or severe hyperemesis gravidarum for just a few examples.  I think most people are at least in support of abortion in life or death cases.  I once considered myself fairly anti-abortion, but I always held that a pro-life decision should be made if a woman's life was in danger—save her life by terminating the pregnancy. Ending one life to save another is better than knowingly letting two lives end.

Marco Rubio looked as if he was possessed by a demon, if such were really a thing, during President Obama's last State of the Union address.  I'd thought if there was really a wicked being called Satan, maybe he was sitting there, going by the name of Marco.  The only thing his eyes and facial features manifested was pure hate.  How a person could sit there with a hateful expression and evil-flashing eyes when Obama said all the good things he did is beyond my comprehension.

I won't even bother talking in depth about Rick Santorum, as I was disgusted that he even ran again; I hated listening to the man the last time he ran.  Why anyone would even consider desiring such a person to preside over our nation boggles my mind.  I'm glad we didn't have to watch him, nor Mike Huckabee, for very long this time.  I could go on and on about Santorum alone.

Ted Cruz isn't a lot better than Santorum.

Then there's the woman who doesn't hide her personality as a bitch, Carly Fiorina.  I'm not sure whether she ever smiles sincerely about anything good.  It's been beyond annoying to listen to her repeat endlessly that we need to "take back our country," whatever that means, while she bobbles her head constantly.

Ben Carson seems like he'd be a real likable individual, to me, just to be able to talk to and get along with, and I love his calm, gentle voice, but he's definitely not president material.  I dislike some of his policy ideas, for sure.  (Update:  I no longer care for Ben Carson much. He ruined his reputation by joining Trump's Cabinet.)

Jeb Bush actually has had a few worthy ideas, like pointing out to the rest of the foolish Republicans that it's asinine to think we can just deport eleven million Mexicans back to Mexico and proposing a fair way for those adults who came over to pay back coming here without going through the legal process.  I don't want to see Jeb as the president either, but if I had to vote for one of the running Republicans, he would be my choice over the others.

Rand Paul is a disappointment. I like his father, but Rand falls severely short.  It disgusted me to hear him discount climate change, and I've heard him talk about other things that caused me to shake his head.  He's better than most of them, in my opinion, but he's infected with a lot of the "conservative" ideals.  (The party is not conservative with going to war, not conservative of the environment, and not conservative with government spending, as war is at the top of government spending.)  I will at least say for Rand that he has seemed to adopt his father's foreign policy ideals, more or less, which earns him my respect as far as that is concerned.

Chris Christie I mostly dislike.  He actually said a few sensible things, but I don't even remember what they were.  However, I do remember one very idiotic thing he said.  He figured we should shoot down Russian aircraft if they fly in a U.S.-demanded "no-fly-zone" in Syria. Well, who are we to impose a no-fly zone in another nation?  Who appointed us as world king dictator?  I don't remember which one, two, or three candidates followed him up in that particular debate and slammed Christie on his stupidity, but I'm glad for it.  We certainly do not need anyone presiding over our nation who would exercise such poor judgment as that.

John Kasich, I thought at first, was ok.  I got to thinking that he was quite a bit different than the others.  He seemed to be independent in his thinking.  But then as more debates occurred, and he said more, I started to really dislike a lot of what he was saying.  Then there's the fact that he has habitually rambled on and on, even when he's been told his time was up.

Then there's Donald Trump.  Trump has really brought out in the open those who are haters in their hearts.  If they hated secretly before, they are not afraid to express that hate in the open now.  I shake my head sadly at the state of the "Bible Belt," which is, ironically, the most antichrist section of the nation.  I will soon write in detail with plenty of factual evidence to elaborate on this statement, in another post.  Donald Trump started out as ridiculous entertainment, but he quickly entered the realm of seriously dangerous behavior.  This billionaire who incites hatred has numerous very loyal followers, which eerily reminds me of Hitler's uprising and others like it.  I can't imagine what it must feel like to be a Muslim right now.  He wants to ban all Muslims—even U.S. citizens who are away visiting or serving in the military—from the U.S. until things are supposedly sorted out with Islam, and he wants every member of Islam to be identified and tracked.

What does it take to get these nutcases to understand that most Muslims are not violent terrorists, just as most Christians are not violent terrorists, despite the fact that some are?  Why do the Republicans only focus on "radical Islamic terrorists" but do not even so much as mention "radical Christian terrorists?"  Why was Dylan Roof's shooting up African Americans in their peaceful church service not discussed, nor Robert Dear's massacre of innocent individuals in a Planned Parenthood clinic?  A quick Google search will reveal that radical Christian terrorists have killed more people, and have carried out more attacks, in the U.S. since 9/11 than Islamic terrorists.   There have also been so many mass gun shootings, but the Republicans lie and will have you believe the government wants to ban all guns, when the truth is that we can simply make it more difficult for violent or mentally ill people to gain access to guns, which would reduce violence and deaths.  It seems it's not terrorism or deaths that these candidates and their followers are against, but rather people who are Muslim instead of Christian.  If all Muslims are automatically evil and dangerous because a small minority are violent terrorists, then all Christians must be automatically the same because of their violent terrorizing minority.  These people lack logic!  They also lack compassion and fair judgment.  Besides all this, most of the victims in the world who are injured, murdered, or otherwise victimized by Islamic terrorists are Muslims!  Chew on that.  Muslims also hate Islamic terrorists more than anyone else, which ought to make fine logical sense.  Christians don't want to be misrepresented by Christian terrorists, and atheists don't want a bad reputation when an atheist carries out an act of terrorism. 

If Jesus was alive and present in the world, he would not be impressed one bit by any of what is going on in the right-wing circus these clowns are running.  He would reject his name being used by these bearers of bad fruit.  He would say things like, "You don't even know me" (Matt. 7:23) and "You people give me lip service while dealing wickedly in your hearts and actions" (Matt. 15:8).

There is no talk of trying to care for the environmental disaster that is going to lead to more and more death and destruction to various species, including us, and ecosystems.  These people are not discussing how they can help people out of poverty and provide them a better education which leads to better parenting and reduced crime.  They're not talking about how they can put a stop to corporate bribes (since they're the ones taking the bribes) to government officials to protect evil corporate interests.  They're not considering how they can pass a law to make the ultra-wealthy pay their fair share of taxes.  They're not deliberating on how they can ban cruel horrors like factory-farming.  They clearly do not give any care to encourage growth in clean technology.  They're not demanding the end of private prisons that encourage more arrests of people who don't need to be locked up so that these people can get richer.  They're not putting an end to the insane "war on drugs" and making moves to decriminalize cannabis and get drug-addicted people help instead of locking them up.  They are not demanding that pharmaceutical companies make their lifesaving drugs affordable to those who need them.  They're not fighting for parents to get a fair family leave package after the birth of a child.  They are not bothered that our healthcare system is embarrassing when compared to those of other developed nations, with citizens spending outrageous amounts of money for much worse results.  They certainly are not making any moves to be the number-one peacemaking country on the planet.

In other words, they don't care about the same things Jesus cared about—helping the poor, the care of the planet, the healing of the sick, generosity, grace, compassion, kind treatment of animals, and peacemaking, among others.

The better portion of America's right-wing, in other words, is anti-Christ.