Friday, October 25, 2019

BECAUSE WE ARE HUMAN (some) HAVE RIGHTS

BECAUSE WE ARE HUMAN, 
 (some?)  
THEREFORE HAVE RIGHTS


On December 6th of 2011, former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton
spoke before the United Nations in Geneva Switzerland, giving what is considered to be her most famous speech. There she stated:

"All human beings are... free and equal in dignity and rights.. Rights, not conveyed by government, but the birthright of all people....

BECAUSE WE ARE HUMAN, WE THEREFORE HAVE RIGHTS,

and because we have rights, Governments are bound to protect those rights... and allow freedom for the full expression of those rights.... "Today I want to talk to you about the work we have left to do to protect one group of people... in many ways, they are an invisible minority... Many are treated with contempt and violence by their fellow citizens while authorities empowered to protect them look the other way... "

Are you familiar with this speech? Is she saying that she is committed to protecting the rights of every person subject to violence or death due to discrimination? NO SHE IS NOT!

Here she is acknowledging the historical plight of the global LGBT population, and rightfully so; for the profound suffering they have endured.

But even as she strives to bring recognition to one group of hidden persons, she champions the destruction of another, as she continues to oppose any form of legal or social protections that would hinder their destruction. Another, much larger segment of our population: The unplanned, unborn among us.

Why are these humans residing in their mother's womb, deprived of their rights?

Is it our birth or our humanity that makes us deserving of dignity, freedom, and human rights?

As a human doesn't birthright include my right to be born?

The sanctuary of the womb is experienced by every human, regardless of race, creed or gender description. It is the natural place of nurturing and protection foundational to all positive human experience.

I heartily agree with the sentiments of Hillary's speech, but unlike Hillary or Bernie, I believe that every human, regardless of race, creed or gender description deserve dignity equality and the freedom to peruse their rights as LIVING HUMAN BEINGS whether wanted by the powerful people in their life or not.

See Hillary's statement on the rights of humans in the womb at, http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/03/hillary-unborn-babies-do-not-have-rights-video/

Bernie Sanders statement on the rights of humans in the womb at,

See her full LGBT speech at.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIqynW5EbIQ

 Messaged Repies /Responses
(Reader's reply)...I get that you're against abortion and that you think that fetuses deserve equal rights to the mother.....
(My response)... I DO NOT SUPPORT EQUALITY. I oppose the right of a fetus, child or adult to end the life of their parent at any time. I believe that all humans deserve human rights, including parents, but precedence has been set that some family members can TERMINATE the lives of other family members under current law. This is what I oppose.
(Reader's reply)... But do you think Trump will be better on this issue than Clinton, and even if he is, how about the many other issues where Trump's positions seem horrible. Are you really a one issue voter or are you just appealing to emotion to get Trump elected?
(My response)... I am not writing about Trump. I am writing about what Hillary said in her speech and what is morally right as human beings. I would hope that both she and Trump would work to reduce the destruction of human lives.





at No comments:

WHOSE VALUES WERE THE MOST PROGRESSIVE?

ARE THE VALUES OF THE NAZI EUGENICS... 
WOVEN INTO THE FABRIC OF TODAY'S AMERICA?
AND ENSHRINED BY THE SMITHSONIAN?


photo source https://www.lifenews.com/2015/10/20/smithsonian-puts-racist-planned-planned-parenthood-founder-margaret-sanger-in-civil-rights-exhibit/
Most American's my age or younger do not know that America's eugenics efforts were an inspiration to Hitler during the early years of his rise to power. They do not know that America's progressive movement guided and financed many of Hitler's efforts and their actions were used in defense of Hitler's policies at the Nuremberg Trials. This direct connection has some how been forgotten.
.
In harmony with these attitudes Margret Sanger an outspoken progressive promoted and sought support from racist organizations including the KKK as she strategically placed her population control centers in the locations most accessible to the target ethnic groups. Her stated goal was to reduce target populations. Read her writings below. (see featured article).
.
Since Roe V Wade in 1973, Sanger's organization has legally added the option of pre-birth extermination centers for the unwanted. 
.
Excluding natural demise due to old age, abortion is the leading cause of death in America. It exceeds death by disease, accident, homicide and suicide. Statistics show that death by abortion exceeds all unnatural causes of death COMBINED. Currently, over 58,000,000 of these exterminations have occurred in the U.S. since 1973. 
.
As you can imagine, when directed at specific populations; this is a very effective means of exterminating large numbers in a targeted group, and this is why many in the black community are asking that her statue be removed. What do you think the Smithsonian should do?
.
(note) Please excuse the insensitivity and bluntness in my use of the term "extermination." This is the term used to describe the camps created by Hitler to accomplish the same goals as described by Sanger in adult populations across Europe. They are labeled extermination camps. I apologize for any undue discomfort this may create. But extermination of the pre-born in targeted populations WAS THE INTENDED PURPOSE of these facilities and many in the black community are offended by this fact.
.
Sources:

A very interesting and well detailed article on racism, eugenics, America and Hitler.

Featured article: 
A very interesting and well detailed article on racism, eugenics and Margret Sanger
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/penny-starr/black-pastors-ask-smithsonian-remove-bust-planned-parenthood-founder

 Reader 1
Re: eugenics, Iceland has fewer Down's Syndrome people because they are opting to abort these specific pre born kids. Dr. Down characterized them as a regression of evolution. Personally, the Downs people that I have know have enriched my life.
Reader 2
Many of Sanger's writings indicate that this was the population she was trying to help. They didn't have medical care and had no alternative to pregnancy. Remember this was a time when a woman could not refuse her husband, but she had to provide full care for the children.

Reader 1
13 Things You Probably Don’t Know About Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger
http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/22/13-things-you-probably-dont-know-about-planned-parenthood-founder-margaret-sanger/

  See no. 12 if you like, but it is pretty hard to read. With her in charge, some of my family would not have been born.

 Reader2
I think this is a very biased article. I would rather rely on complete articles from her. She didn't have a PR person for her sound bites, but her real concern was for the mothers she saw who were overwhelmed by the number of children they had to care for. Also there was not the tolerance for birth defects that we have now. Technology and medicine have helped correct or compensate for the defects she saw. There was little prenatal care, and nutrition was in its infancy. I'm glad your family survived and apparently flourished.

 Reader 1
 I'm not sure what to say. Her quotes were her words. I'm not sure what context would be able to change the meaning. She was explicit. But if you know of a full article, you can share, please do.

 Host
I appreciate the thoughtful responses and the graciousness I see extended as we try to see each other and Ms Sanger in the best light possible. I only wish we could do the same thing today. Perhaps today Ms Sanger would modify her statements, even as our President frequently does. Wouldn't it be pleasant if he were more eloquent. But he is not, and in a similar manner Ms Sanger was also very blunt about her intentions in racial profiling which has been effectively carried out in the organization she founded. What do you think of the map described in the feature article below, showing the correlation of family planning clinics in Afro American Neighborhoods? 

 https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/penny-starr/black-pastors-ask-smithsonian-remove-bust-planned-parenthood-founder

Reader 2
Hardly an unbiased source. She was not trying to eliminate the race but make life better for them. I am grateful, as a woman, that I did not have to conceive every time I had sex.

 Reader 3
Guess I have to defend my homeland. Given the inbreeding that has occurred in Iceland, it has become a nation of serious study for gene pools. Pretty unique to the world, actually. My grandparents were first cousins. Alcoholism is prevalent in Iceland. Yet, we are as a group pretty smart and ahead of the times in the world. Proud to be an Icelander. We are, actually, pretty special.

 Reader 1
 I am pretty certain that there are scads of admirable traits of Icedandic people. This one choice (among many good choices) is quite sad. I wonder if they are under some sort of duress. IDK. I hope that this changes for Iceland and it's people. It's sad to read. It's also hard for me to hear about.

 "What kind of society do you want to live in?": Inside the country where Downs Syndrome is disappearing. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/down-syndrome-iceland/

 Reader 2
Here is a more even discussion of Ms. Sanger.
What Margaret Sanger Really Said About Eugenics and Race
Was she the racist that some allege?
http://time.com/4081760/margaret-sanger-history-eugenics/
TIME.COM

 Reader 3
Poverty and excessive reproduction do not work well together. I am an unpopular pro-choice individual. And it's far better to prevent unwanted pregnancies than to have to deal with the choices later.....

 Host
IN RESPONSE TO THE "What she said," ARTICLE;
Although the article above is titled, "What she really said." It is not. 

 It is the writer's interpretation of what she thought Sanger meant. Sanger's statements are alarmingly absent from the article. 

 It wrongly separates the terms eugenics from racist. They were almost synonymous in Ms Sanger's time.

 Today there is a separation because of the Civil Rights Movement and our greater scientific awareness. But Sanger didn't do her writing in our time. 

 At the turn of the last century INFERIOR GENETIC STOCK WAS BLAMED FOR CREATING (what was seen as) "INFERIOR" ORGANISMS. 

 Her's was the time when Darwin's Adaptation of the species and survival of the fittest was conjoined with Mendel's genetic model. Racial differences were viewed as steps of progression or regression on the evolutionary chain; One that separated perceived inferior people from other more superior people. 

 Intentional selective breeding was the practice during that time period used to create desired breeds of cattle, horses, dogs, cats, etc. With knowledgeable application, progressives believed a from of selective breeding could and should be done with People as well.

 Margret wrote extensively and enthusiastically about these goals that were both Eugenic and Racist, but her writings did not include expressions of hatred or intentions of punishment toward those that she clearly viewed as inferior. Her's was a presentation of hollow sympathy.... from a position of superiority as always seems the case with elitist views. 

 The fact that she immersed herself into the Black Community and offered a sense of choice to the oppressed was definitely an act of controlled compassion and took courage. That it was seen as an effort to enrich lives and give a greater sense of freedom, or even remove oppression, appeared as a very praiseworthy effort.

 But in reality it was also very racist. Those were the times she lived in, and that was the progressive elitist attitude of her day, and the attitude expressed in her writings. 

 To more completely understand these attitudes the following article provides a great deal of detailed information.
 http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1796
Host
THE SAD TRUTH!
Vulnerable women and their offspring 
have suffered HORRENDOUSLY!
True since the beginning of history, 
(but God hears)..... Not the hope you were looking for?

 Some examples include: In the history of the Bible, Sarai's abuse of her pregnant slave Hagar who fled to die of starvation rather than suffer oppression at the hands of her mistress. The mother's in Isreal at Moses time and in Bethlehem, at the time of Christ's birth that faced the extermination of their live born males (which was not an uncommon occurrence in ancient times for conquered peoples.) There was the taking of female concubines that occurred then and continues today, especially under Islam. There was the divine right of kings and nobility and similar legal measures of oppression across Europe and Asia. And then of course there were the everyday facts written about by Margret Sanger and Upton Sinclair at the turn of the century in America. 

 In recognition of this theme, King Solomon wrote: 

                     Ecclesiastes 4 (NIV)

 Again I looked and saw all the oppression
       that was taking place under the sun:
         I saw the tears of the oppressed—
           and they have no comforter;
power was on the side of their oppressors—
            and they have no comforter.
            And I declared that the dead,
                 who had already died,
    are happier than the living, who are still alive.
But better than both is the one who has never been born,
who has not seen the evil that is done under the sun.

 This section of scripture is not a directive, but a statement of fact. It is an acknowledgement of the hopelessness we experience in the futility of what we have created through our attitudes and behaviors. This futility and hopelessness is our sad inheritance.

 I would liken obedience to this instruction to that of the staff of the Titanic gathering all of the weapons and ammunition on board and summarily executing all of the passengers that were not fortunate enough to fit onto the life boats. These executions would be done as acts of kindness in an effort to alleviate suffering by providing quick and easy deaths. This would not be unprecedented since similar acts were done in the conquest of Masada and Gamla in Israel, and more recently The People's Temple in Uganda, as they perished to avoid what they saw as a future of suffering. In each case death was imposed, (on their own people) by those in positions of power, even as we do in abortion. 

 But back to Hagar who has fled to die in the wilderness.

 Genesis 16 NIV
8 An angel appears and asks: “Hagar, Sarai’s maid, where have you come from, and where are you going?”
Hagar: “I am running away from my mistress.”
9-12 The Angel: “Return to your mistress and act as you should, for I will make you into a great nation. Yes, you are pregnant and your baby will be a son, and you are to name him Ishmael (‘God hears’), because God has heard your woes. 

 He instilled a hope. 

 My reaction on the Titanic would have been to remove the pins from all of the thousands of doors on the ship and bring them to the deck to build rafts for these people in the (HOPE) that rescue would come soon.

 In dealing with the the handicapped, the in firmed, the orphan or the pregnant, our current ideas of a community of inclusion is a good start and for this I am proud to be an American.

 To more completely understand progressive attitudes of eugenic during Sanger's time the following article provides a great deal of detailed information.
http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1796



at No comments:

PROGRESSIVE AGENDAS THAT ENDANGER MINORITIES

ENDANGERING  MINORITIES


State Ambassador warned of backlashes

“Now they have unleashed cultural terrorism on us.”

Senior State Department Deputy Ambassador Richard Hoagland warned his audience at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in 2014 about the cost of aggressively pushing the LGBT agenda.

“There are times and places where I believe we need to temper our idealism with at least a certain degree of realpolitik.”

“...We should never forget the terribly important maxim, ‘First do no harm."... “There are countries in the world, whether religiously or culturally deeply conservative, that will react to our goals with backlash against their own LGBT citizens.”

“We should maintain enough humility to remember that we are terribly new at promoting LGBT human rights as U.S. foreign policy...."

FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE

Shortly after the assassinations of Pakistani Governor, Taseer and Minority Minister Bahti and the killing of Osama bin Laden  in June of 2011, the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad, held its first-ever LGBT “Pride Celebration.” One of many US sponsored GLIFFA events held across the middle east during the Obama administration.

Hoagland, a homosexual, and then the number two diplomat at the mission, co-hosted the USAID, and GILFAA event,(Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies.)

A week later, anti-U.S. Protestors in Pakistan described the event as an act of "Cultural Terrorism."

info on Ambassador Richard E. Hoagland at:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/pix/lgbt/2014/226356.htm

DIVIDING THE GLOBAL COMMUNITY

Obama's State Department, then headed by Hillary Clinton, made LGBT rights America's top priority in global foreign affairs, as we co-sponsored the first-ever resolution adopted by the U.N. on the human rights of LGBT people. During her U.N. Geneva speech in December 2011, she alluded to what would be coming next, stating:

"Because Governments impose Laws, and Laws have a teaching effect, religious beliefs and cultural values do not justify the failure of governments to promote, (through teaching laws), the full rights of LGBT people.

Although the U.S. sponsored  measure was passed by 23-19 votes in the U.N., it split the council between Western and Latin American countries on one side and Muslim and African members on the other.

Above Information from: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/state-dep-t-official-warns-backlash-promoting-lgbt-rights-abroad

REMOVING ALL SANCTUARY

According to a Pew study, Christians face religious persecution in more countries than any other religious group as Christians often experience retaliation, serving as stand-ins for western power and values.

For more than a decade, extremists have targeted Christians and other minorities, ...This was especially true in Iraq after the U.S. invasion, which caused hundreds of thousands to flee. ‘‘Since 2003, we’ve lost priests, bishops and more than 60 churches were bombed,’’ Bashar Warda, the Chaldean Catholic archbishop of Erbil, said. With the fall of Saddam Hussein, Christians began to leave Iraq in large numbers, and the population shrank to less than 500,000 today from as many as 1.5 million in 2003.

The Arab Spring only made things worse. As dictators like Mubarak in Egypt and Qaddafi in Libya were toppled, their longstanding protection of minorities also ended. Now, ISIS is looking to eradicate Christians and other minorities altogether. ...Recently, ISIS posted videos delineating the second-class status of Christians in the caliphate. Those unwilling to pay the jizya tax or to convert would be destroyed, the narrator warned, as the videos culminated in the now-­infamous scenes of Egyptian and Ethiopian Christians in Libya being marched onto the beach and beheaded, their blood running into the surf.

The future of Christianity in the region of its birth is now uncertain. ‘‘How much longer can we flee before we and other minorities become a story in a history book?’’ says Nuri Kino, a journalist and founder of the advocacy group Demand for Action.......

source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/26/magazine/is-this-the-end-of-christianity-in-the-middle-east.html?_r=0

see Hillary's full U.N. speech at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIqynW5EbIQ


at No comments:

A Very Big Thank You

To all my peers at Unity...Thank you so much!



It took me a little time to process my thoughts, and by then my E-mail was closed and I didn't want to leave it unsaid, so...

Thank you Aimee and Beth and everyone who contributed! I can't begin to express the gratitude that I felt with your generous gifts and your displays of recognition and appreciation at my retirement party! The gifts were PERFECT! I was truly overwhelmed! Thank you so much for your kindness, your presence, your hugs and your good-wishes!

Many of you expressed surprise and some were saddened with my decision to suddenly retire as I was so intensely engaged in efforts to influence and improve our PES environment. If you were counting on me to be there, I apologize.

Most of you also know that these last few months were very challenging for me, (as they were for all of us after the OHA audit), and how the OHA bump in the road abruptly shifted our focus. From a clear focus of stabilizing our city's most vulnerable patients... To one of demonstrating compliance with the ever so tedious task of searching for the correct locations in the randomly organized, multifaceted non-emergent computer charting system to record our redundancies. Although I am certain that the data miners are thrilled. This was something I had hoped to avoid by leaving floor nursing.

I want you all to know that through this time I personally found everyone in the nursing field at Unity, including my manager extremely supportive, both personally and professionally. Among those I especially appreciated due to their timely actions were each of my charge nurses, Kevin, Sarah, Elisha, Jeff and Jen.  Thank you Jen for normalizing the idea of filling in every box, even when COMPLETELY REDUNDANT. I needed that to survive. (It still makes no sense to me)

Thank you Kevin for your unique openness and friendship and for helping me to see the big picture in how to get organized on the EPIC system. I appreciated your kindness and persistence in checking my efforts and offering respectful and supportive encouragement. I appreciated your willingness to trust me as we team worked with many of our most difficult people. 

Thank you Elisha, Sarah and Jeff for standing up for me specifically and for all of us Nurses in general as you responded to  situations where Corrective Actions were taken against acceptable but uniquely prioritized nursing practices. Good Job on seeking and obtaining greater representation! You guys are amazing! This is the first time that I have heard of a group unionizing to obtain greater freedom to pursue excellence in serving their community! Usually it is about wages or vacations! I hope that the Legacy Organization realizes what an asset they have in you and listens carefully to your insights in the future!

I also want to thank you Aimee. I appreciate the confidence and faith you placed in me. I am grateful for the opportunity to grow and adapt as we opened the PES and as you know I enjoyed thinking on my feet and applying my skills in the ever changing ED setting. It was a challenge that I feel we all grew into. Thank you for your efforts in helping me to overcome the obstacles that came up, and the graciousness that you extended in our meetings. I appreciate the times that you went to bat for me when there were misunderstandings with medical staff.

So what was the problem?  And, why did I decide to leave? ...

In  my practice, my Nursing Goal in the PES was simple. Of course there is safety and labs and meds and all the rest... and then there was my patient stabilization goal...

"To connect with, and to identify and explore a reasonable Hope."

 which could be as simple as 
(fully enjoying)... smell, feel, taste, and 
describe the effect,
 of a cup of tea together, 
(i.e.... grounding before directing or problem solving) 

To be honest, with the busy-ness of the additional computer tasks I found that I was no longer taking the time to accomplish my stabilization goal. I was not consistently doing both. I could do one, or the other, but often I could not do both.

I also found that doing med audits for four months placed me under suspicion with our medical staff and their confidence in my actions and assessments seemed to have evaporated. Eventually my actions, statements and decisions were being questioned by some on a near daily basis. I was even accused of lying about the side effects I observed. As you can imagine, this saddened me. But later when the patient,  expressed great relief and gratitude for the effectiveness of the medication I (wrongly) gave. I was very glad I followed my training and instincts. Instincts which also led to my leaving.

Since the options in life do not include Do-Over's, and I had just spent four months proving myself only to have a very negative outcome, it seemed best to leave and reap the benefits of my other investments.

(Did I tell you I just bought a new windsurf board?)

So I end with a suggestion on how to have greater unity at Unity.
Please be patient as I try to illustrate.

The culture at my previous hospital was influenced by a mission statement..., "To demonstrate in human form the healing ministry of Jesus Christ." which was often referred to as, "SACRED WORK." This mission attempts to capture ideas of "moral truth," like healing, comfort, compassion and patience, e.t.c...

Legacy's culture which extends to Unity, promotes ideals of, Social Justice, which are also held by many in a sense as, "SACRED WORK," and presented in the statement... "ABOVE ALL, we will do THE RIGHT THING." The status of sacredness can be seen in our fervency to display reverent social etiquette toward marginalized groups, much like the reverent speech displayed in many formal prayers. The "moral truth" extended... Intense Fairness.

Whether every individual in the organization personally holds either of these messages as sacred was actually unimportant. In reality they serve as identity markers to rallying forms of focused altruistic effort. 

Unfortunately it is also the nature of humanity to harbor mistrust and form judgments and then reward or punish along perceived lines of allegiance. I saw this at AMC toward a peer who jokingly coined the phrase, "badventist," and I believe this happens often at Unity toward anyone that does not show enough zeal in their displays of reverence toward cultural change.

Is it possible to humbly and respectfully disagree on some perceptions of morality? Or do we all have to be beaten into the same mold? The Following TED talk is very good on this topic.


 it can be found at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs41JrnGaxc



If you think that the main point of the talk is to create punishments that will be effective in bringing greater fairness, then you are still lost in the Matrix. 
The challenging question is... 
Setting aside his personal tastes on religious systems and going back to the data. Is it better to function on two channels and ignore the other three, or recognize and UTILIZE ALL FIVE and WEIGHT THEM PROPERLY on a MOMENT TO MOMENT basis? 

Which leads to my final suggestion, to bring greater fairness and unity to Unity... 

Create a hybrid Mission Statement like...

 "Above All, We Will Respect Human Dignity, 
As Our Sacred Duty."

We will humbly respect...

The dignity of our patients, their families and their circumstance, and not ridicule.

The dignity of our peers, providers, managers, even if we disagree strongly with them on what we feel are very important issues

The dignity of those who serve among us in other capacities.

Hopefully this would result in a refrain from gossip and derision and segregating from, or singling out those who hold differing values. If we were to extend the benefit of graciousness rather then scolding or judgmental criticisms and avoid punitive action toward those who hold differing opinions. This would also be a great step toward,  "Intense Fairness."
  

Again, Thank you ALL and May God Bless us each and every one!



at No comments:

IS JUDGMENT COMING? LINCOLN THOUGHT YES! WHAT ABOUT YOU?



IS JUDGMENT COMING?

LINCOLN THOUGHT YES!   

WHAT ABOUT YOU?





This photo was taken at the Philadelphia Monument at Gettysburg. Gettysburg was a three day battle in 1863, ending on July 4th with a loss of approximately 51,000 Americans. Hopefully in this next election, our influence as citizens can direct our leaders back to civil dialogue instead of continuing to demonize their opponents and divide our population against itself.

Lincoln's 2nd  Inaugural address, inscribed on the walls of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC reviews the horrific cost of the Civil War. There Lincoln describes the war, as a Judgment of God for the sins of slavery. The War occurred between 1861 and 1865. It took 1,094,453 American lives and cost over $7,500,000,000 to fight with benefits to injured veterans far exceeding the cost of the original war. 
WHY WE IMPOSED THIS PUNISHMENT ON EACH OTHER

For many it was fought to end slavery a long overdue demonstration of how much #BlackLivesMatter . From the signing of the Constitution forward, it was a hotly contested issue. For others it was fought to sustain the structure of the Union; and some fought for their right to continue the lifestyle and economic system they had grown accustomed to. 

 Although a temporary form of slavery, "indentured servitude," was foundational in the establishment of the colonies, it's application was unjust, with rights and privileges being given or withheld mostly along racial and gender lines. Instead of surrendering ones freedom and enlisting to work for a set number of years with the promise of obtaining land and greater freedoms, the black's and many other nonwhites remained indentured for life. With the addition of the African slave trade many arrived as human chattel, stripped of all rights and privileges.  

 At that time in history, slave labor was the most exploitable labor resource. Africans vulnerable to neighboring tribes, neighboring Arabs and European Slavers and the slave trade network were the links that chained this supply to the demands of  European consumers. 

 THINKING OUTSIDE OF THE CHAINS 

 In 1861 there were an estimated 4,000,000 slaves in the United States.

 Had the North AND the South spent the 7.5 billion in a combined efforts, to purchase emancipation for each of these 4 million persons, the cost would have been about $1,875.00 for each person and presented a strong gesture that black lives REALLY do matter.  

 Had the South invested this money into infrastructure, farms, roads, railroads, factories, ports ships, schools, housing, churches, etc, the wealth of the Southern States would have surged beyond the perceived benefits of many years of  slave labor and there would have been no devastation of the South. 

 The purchase price of a human being at that time was incredibly expensive at between $450 and $1,800. Today in Sudan the cost is nearer to $100, or about $10 (in 1860 money). With all the fury about racial injustice; I don't see why black lives being sold into slavery today don't seem to matter to American activists?

 Recently, Steve Maman, a Sephardic Jew from Montréal Canada launched a global movement with a GoFundMe page that topped a half-million dollars to pay for the release of Yazidis and Christians from their ISIS captors. In doing so he has created a lifeline for some 2,700 young women and girls estimated to still be in captivity behind Islamic State lines. See Story  @ http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4694211,00.html

 Purchasing emancipation prior to 1861, at the same cost as the War would have seemed a little spendy, by market standard, but a real bargain in comparison to what actually happened!

 But that would have required thinking outside of the chains of  suspicion and hatred. Chains that were formed due to our failure to find WORKING COMPROMISE in our representative government. Genuine empathy and problem solving could have freed us, but we chose to punish instead. 

 As our current drive for ever accelerating profits extracted from cheaper and cheaper labor grows, our willingness to ignore the plight of our fellows also grows. Colonialism had it's exploitative abuses. But it also invested and created stability and infrastructure. Today this is not required. 

 Has today's GLOBAL COMMUNITY recreated the CONDITIONS that promoted the existence of  a GLOBAL SLAVE TRADE? As we continue to move away from the Judeo-Christian Values toward greater and greater social hedonism it is very likely that we may truly  become, "OUR BROTHER'S KEEPERS," as they slave to meet our consumer appetites.
For examples, Click the directly link below.
https://plus.google.com/116167242209081966340/posts/Yram6dTfk1h and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vG1AwxCx_YA&list=WL&index=34 Click the round photo to the left at the top of this page for more Videos, Posts, and Articles.
 some sources
@wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States  @www. infoplease.com/spot/slavery1.html
 @www. civilwarhome.com/warcosts.htm
 Detailed studies of Union and Confederate military casualties are found in Numbers and Losses in the Civil War in America 1861-65 by Thomas L. Livermore (I901) and Regimental Losses in the American Civil War, 1867-1865 by William F. Fox (1889).
 Source: "Historical Times Encyclopedia of the Civil War" Edited by Patricial L. Faust
at No comments:

THE PROGRESSIVE POLITIC OF SHARIA

THE PROGRESSIVE 
POLITICS OF SHARIA 


Photo source: https://www.universal-rights.org/blog/the-arc-of-the-covenant-the-unfinished-business-of-un-efforts-to-combat-religious-intolerance/attachment/5940678519_e258f86288_o/
Are the 57 nations of the O.I.C. opposing Religious Defamation, or modifying their methods of enforcing Sharia and Sharia Blasphemy Laws? 

Does the Western practice of punishment through the "Teaching Laws,"  of "Political correctness," mirror the model of the Sharia? Some say absolutely...

(An opinionated link at: )https://barenakedislam.com/2018/09/30/here-they-go-again-the-latest-attempt-by-the-organization-of-islamic-cooperation-oic-to-have-the-un-enforce-sharia-compliant-blasphemy-laws/)

But to avoid biased interpretation, why not hear from the Secretary General himself on the topic.

Hear interviews with the recent leader of the (O.I.C.) who cosponsored and won unanimous support for U.N. Resolution 16/18, (opposing the disrespecting of religion and specifically any discrimination against followers of Isam), with the help of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at: 


and:


THE ORGANIZATION OF ISLAMIC COOPERATION (O.I.C.), was founded in 1969. It ascribes to the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam,at: http://www.icnl.org/research/library/files/Transnational/HRI-En.pdf

and the Covenant on the Rights of the Child in Islam at:

Both documents call for the implementation of Sharia as a basic human right, and view the absence of Sharia as a deprivation of human rights.

Subsequently The (O.I.C.) DOES NOT fully ASCRIBE to the 1948 United Nations Human Rights Declaration. 

The (O.I.C.) is the second largest inter-governmental organization in the world, second only to the United Nations with it's 57 member states, and comprises the largest voting block in the United Nations.

View an informative video following the themes of this article 

at:
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey-TRpkUiPI

For the last 15 years the (I.O.C.) has worked in the U.N. to achieve INTERNATIONAL LEGAL STANDING FOR SHARIA BLASPHEMY LAWS. It's stated mission is to partner with specialized U.N. agencies, foreign governments, and civil organizations to address issues of concern to (O.I.C.) member states and to Muslims worldwide. In 2005, it adopted a ten-year plan to address additional issues including terrorism, poor governance, economic inequality and to closely monitor acts Islamophobia.

In keeping with this goal a website for monitoring, incidents of Islamophobia is found at:  http://www.oic-oci.org/oicv3/page/?p_id=182&p_ref=61&lan=en

Although identifying Religious Defamation is the stated goal, and Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu speaks to the West about displeasure with antisemitism  and anti-Christian attitudes, ONLY ACTS OF ISLAMOPHOBIA are recorded on the site, and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation DOES NOT MONITOR ACTS of religious persecution COMMITED BY MUSIMS against NON-MUSLIMS. As directed by it's founders. It does not monitor, regulate or discourage Muslims from proselytizing or imposing Sharia Law on Non-Muslim populations as in the case of Asia Bibi.


Even before the 9/11 attacks the (I.O.C.) expressed concern over the possibility of discrimination against the followers of Islam and pushed for international resolutions to stop them.

The original resolutions asserted that Islam is wrongly associated with human rights violations; Islam is wrongly associated with terrorism; and that there has been an “intensified campaign” of discrimination, defamation, profiling, and religious hatred waged against Islam and Muslims since the wake of 9/11. The resolutions further request States to “take action, to combat defamation of all religions and incitement to religious hatred in general and against Islam and Muslims in particular. They also assert that “respect for religions” and “protection from contempt” are necessary for freedom of thought and conscience.

See more detailed contextual and historical information at:

This (O.I.C.) effort to give Sharia blasphemy laws international legal standing at the United Nations eventually WON MAJORITY SUPPORT in 2011, when their 57 member states outvoted the United States and Western European representatives. The west opposed the original resolutions due to it's wording on restrictions on freedom of expression. A language compromise dropped direct reference to the terms, blasphemy and defamation in the measure, and RESOLUTION 16/18 was then CO-SPONSORED BY U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON and passed by unanimous consent. 

She called the resolution, "A LANDMARK ACHIEVEMENT."

She said that it affirms "the positive role that the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the full respect for the freedom to seek, receive and impart information can play in strengthening democracy and combating religious intolerance."

That it "condemns any advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, whether it involves the use of print, audio-visual or electronic media or any other means."

And it creates a list of "actions to foster a domestic environment of religious tolerance, peace and respect," and it calls on states to adopt "MEASURES TO CRIMINALIZE incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief."

You may recall that 2011 was also the year that Hillary gave her famous LGBT speech. Given before the United Nations, it proclaimed the need for, "TEACHING LAW," in America and across the globe to end the persecution of LGBTQ citizens and to advance the status of the LGBTQ cause globally.




Hear her entire speech at: 


In her speech she emphasized how TEACHING LAWS were created and then enforced to achieve Civil Rights advancement here in America. How TEACHING LAWS gave direction and emboldened  population as guiding mandates to achieve progress in many ways including the actions of Affirmative Actions and Forced Busing for school integration.

Unfortunately the (O.I.C.) has a MUCH STRONGER VIEW OF TEACHING LAW..i.e. SHARIA, and DOES NOT ACCEPT WESTERN ideas of TOLERANCE IN RELIGION or SEXUAL EXPRESSION. The (O.I.C.) has repeatedly used their leadership to rejected any movement toward equal rights for LGBTQ individuals or to improve their status as citizens. Officially the (O.I.C.) has consistently REFUSED TO RECOGNIZE THE LEGALITY of any of the United Nations Human Rights Council Resolutions on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity as seen at:



RESOLUTION 16/18 (tolerance for Sharia and blasphemy law, is now International U.N. Law) AS VIEWED BY the REPRESENTATIVE LEADER OF ISLAM

Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu, then-Secretary-General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, made it clear in a 2012 interview... "The (O.I.C.) and I as secretary am a staunch supporter of freedom of expression," "BUT freedom of expression, ACCORDING TO INTERNATIONAL LAW, does not entail freedom of insulting others, denigrating others, mocking others." "Just as no one has the right to randomly scream "Fire!" in a crowded theater, no one has the right to insult Mohammed if others might respond violently.

When pressed as to whether, "making fun of a religion could cause incitement to violence," İhsanoğlu was adamant and specifically said that cartoons that mock Mohammed should be banned, in France and elsewhere.

"If you don’t respect the feelings of 1.5 billion people, and if you don’t feel yourself responsible not to insult them, then we have a problem here. And if we have a problem here, we will have a problem there, with the demonstrations and taking to street and using violence," İhsanoğlu said.

View interview at:



A year later, in a speech in Moscow, İhsanoğlu praised Resolution 16/18 for ADVANCING THE PRINCIPLE THAT FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION DOES NOT INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO DEFAME RELIGION.

The record is clear. The governments of the Islamic majority of nations in the U.N. SEE NO CONFLICT between the enforcement of, "Teaching Law," in America with Resolution 16/18 and the enforcement of (Blasphemy) LAWS THAT BAN cartoons of Mohammed or ANY other PUBLIC ACTS THAT OFFEND BELIEVERS IN ISLAM...(which according to Sharia include building any non Islamic place of worship or repairing an existing one, or any non Islamic public act of worship or non Islamic proselytizing, or kissing in public, dress code violations, refusing to pay Jizya tax... and... and... according to Sharia.)

note: paragraph directly above (extrapolated) and CAPS emphasis added.


Blasphemy Law and Religious Defamation as per the (O.I.C.)/(UN)

WHAT ARE THE OUTCOMES?
DISRESPECTING THE MAJORITY....

For those in the west, subject to the U.N. 1948 Declaration of Human Rights, TEACHING LAWS are to increase, and WESTERN SELF-CENSORSHIP WILL BE REALIZED and ENFORCED by........

Punishment of actions viewed as disrespecting or discriminating against ANY RELIGIOUS MINORITY in general, and SPECIFICALLY MUSLIMS, and the LGBTQ community will be enforced including expression related to RACE, ETHNICITY, RELIGION or the BEHAVIORS or CULTURAL PRACTICES of these groups. 

Subsequently, CRITICAL COMMENTS, and ACTS OF DISCRIMINATION will NOT BE TOLERATED (specifically anti-defamation of Muslims or LGBTQ individuals) and Western Diplomats, Legislators, and Educators WILL ABIDE BY AND PROMOTE these values ACCORDING TO INTERNATIONAL LAW, (U.N. Resolutions 16/18 and 17/19).

For those in the 57 countries under Islamic rule and followers of Islam across the globe, (subject to the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights), the leader of the 57 Nation (I.O.C.), Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu presented a similar DUTY TO CENSOR SELF and to PUNISH OTHERS. 

His followers are to PUBLICLY CENSOR individuals to avoid (culturally justified) VIOLENT public REACTION to acts that defy SHARIA LAW, and to REFRAIN FROM VIGILANTE REACTIONS even though justifiably outraged and insulted. They are (NOW) instructed to let the official administrators of Sharia Law oversee punitive actions ACCORDING TO SHARIA LAW. 

A FAILED QUID PRO QUO....
AS WE PLAY BY DIFFERENT RULES

The steadfastness of the (O.I.C.) to maintain complete diplomatic harmony with the teaching of Sharia have resulted in repeated and strongly stated rejections of U.N. Pro-LGBTQ Resolutions, including (U.N. Resolution 17/19). Their non compliance with these provisions although it is nonbinding, is in sharp contrast to the mandates enacted into TEACHING LAWS in Western countries. In the 1.5 billion follower of Islam that the (I.O.C) represents,  they have created the PERCEPTION that  MORAL STRENGTH is expressed through FIRM RIGIDITY as they continue to refuse to accept any Legal Resolution NOT IN COMPLETE COMPLIANCE WITH SHARIA LAW. Although there is disagreement and infighting over succession  of the leadership in the Islamic Faith, there is significant agreement here.  

COMMENT:

Isn't it ironic that our 1st Amendment allows Hillary to speak freely and critically about the religious faith and teachings of so many here in American (because they are the majority), even to the point of labeling Christian teachings as, "Hate Speech," but cannot speak similarly about the violent acts and repressive actions and teaching of many faiths because they are a minority that we have chosen to protect from scrutiny.

ADDITIONAL OUTCOMES in the article entitled ENDANGERING MINORITIES found at: https://plus.google.com/116167242209081966340/posts/6Ck33c2Lrk8  - It presents Islamic reaction to the promotion of LGBT rights through the US State Department and increased persecution of  Christians who are seen as representatives of western values and other minorities since these Resolutions and subsequent destabilization through warfare.

The tragic example in the article below on Salmaan Taseer's assination and the celebration of that act by Pakistan's religious culture is an excellent historical reference point. It shows a prominent "justifiable acts of violence related to Sharia", now inferred to be avoidable by censorship according to international law. (click link or photo directly below for story) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jan/08/salmaan-taseer-blasphemy-pakistan-bibi

The assassinations of Governor Salmaan Taseer on January 4, 2011 and Cabinet Minister Shabaz Bahti  on March 2, 2011 closely preceded, but had little impact on the signing of both of these UN Resolutions. 

Taseer and Bahti can be heard in the following  playlist below containing  a series of video clips on the topic of "MODERN REFORMATIONS," comparing the US and Pakistani struggle with human rights.

For a reflective view, see playlist at:
or 
for overwiew.


Hear the former leader of the (OIC) and cosponsor of (UN Resolution 16/18) at:
and
(also seen above)


at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)