The Jury Talks Back

6/30/2019

Portland Protests: Photo-Journalist Viciously Assaulted By Antifa Thugs

Filed under: Uncategorized — Dana @ 7:27 pm

[guest post by Dana]

This report, by Kale Williams of Oregon Live, refers to the victim, photo-journalist and editor at Quillette Andy Ngo as a right-leaning provocateur, just in case you were looking for something to justify the violent attack on him. And don’t forget, he willingly went into the potentially violent situation in order to do some reporting, so, you know, shouldn’t have worn that short skirt:

Despite a large showing — left-wing protesters showed up in the hundreds while right-wing demonstrators numbered only a few dozen — Saturday featured only a few isolated flashpoints of violence. Still, one of them has garnered outsized attention with many in conservative circles condemning the mayor and police for perceived inaction in the face of violence.

Andy Ngo, a right-leaning provocateur with online news and opinion outlet Quillette, which identifies Ngo as an editor and photojournalist, went to the left-wing demonstration around noon on Saturday. Around 1:30 p.m., Ngo was attacked by a group of masked individuals who kicked, punched and threw milkshakes at him. He quickly left the scene and was admitted to a local hospital, he said on Twitter.

Pictures he posted after the attack show cuts and bruises to his face and neck as well as what appears to be the remnants of milkshake coating his hair and clothing.

The “milkshake” that landed on Ngo was quite possibly made of quick-drying cement, according to the Portland P.D. Michelle Malkin tweeted late this afternoon that Ngo remains hospitalized. He is reportedly suffering from a “brain bleed”.

And, in what is becoming all too familiar:

Police were lined up along the perimeter of the park before the attack, but no one intervened to break up the fight. Late Saturday, police reported that three people had been arrested, including one for assault, but it was unclear if that person had anything to do with the attack on Ngo.

Here is the “right-leaning provocateur” doing uh, you know, his job yesterday (Photos via Michelle Malkin):

Untitled1

Untitled2

Untitled3

The response from Big Media has been thin at best. A search at the New York Times and the Washington Post links me to a the same AP report. A search of the Los Angeles Times drew a blank. Several mainstream reporters have condemned the attacks:

Untitled3

Anyway, the deafening silence from prominent members of the media who have been raging of late about unfair treatment toward those in their profession, is telling. The danger of assuming the moral high ground is that eventually the smug stance will be tested. This is very often followed by an ungracious tumble down from their vaunted position. Too many people in certain professions just seem to be consistently blind to their own soul-crushing hypocrisy. Journalists, as a whole, respect colleagues who take risks to write stories and report on any number of issues. Yet when a photo-journalist who thinks about things differently, is violently attacked while reporting on a group of dangerous thugs is met with silence from the very same people who are outraged at the mistreatment of those in media, hypocrisy is again exposed. And it doesn’t stop there: The victim is blamed and vile suggestions are made that victimization was his goal all along.

Here are how three news sources framed their tweets about the attack and evidenced that no one at these outlets is aware of the “left-wing” and “far-left”:

Untitled1

Untitled

ABC

Also, here is video of the attack, provided by Jim Ryan of the Oregonian:

Malkin is spearheading a GoFundMe campaign for Andy Ngo here.

–Dana

Sunday Music: Bach Cantata BWV 12, Plus a Bonus Offering Written by Patterico

Filed under: Uncategorized — Patterico @ 12:01 am

It is the third Sunday after Pentecost. Today we have a Bach cantata, and then a special treat: an offering to God written by yours truly, many years ago, but newly transcribed and turned into a MIDI file.

It’s probably a bad idea to put my own offering up in the same post as one from Bach. But my piece was inspired by Bach, so it’s appropriate even if it makes the contrast in quality too obvious.

Let’s start with today’s Bach cantata: “Weinen, Klagen, Sorgen, Zagen” (Weeping, lamenting, worrying, fearing). This is a lovely live performance:

Today’s Gospel reading is Luke 9:51-62:

Samaritan Opposition

As the time approached for him to be taken up to heaven, Jesus resolutely set out for Jerusalem. And he sent messengers on ahead, who went into a Samaritan village to get things ready for him; but the people there did not welcome him, because he was heading for Jerusalem. When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, “Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?” But Jesus turned and rebuked them. Then he and his disciples went to another village.

The Cost of Following Jesus

As they were walking along the road, a man said to him, “I will follow you wherever you go.”

Jesus replied, “Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.”

He said to another man, “Follow me.”

But he replied, “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.”

Jesus said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God.”

Still another said, “I will follow you, Lord; but first let me go back and say goodbye to my family.”

Jesus replied, “No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God.”

The text of today’s piece is available here. It contains these words:

Cross and crown are bound together,
struggle and reward are united.
Christians have at all times
their suffering and their enemy,
yet their comforts are Christ’s wounds.

I follow after Christ,
I will not let go of Him
in prosperity and hardship,
in life and mortality.
I kiss Christ’s shame,
I will embrace His cross.
I follow after Christ,
I will not let go of Him.

Bach used the beginning of first chorus for the Crucifixus portion of the Credo in his Mass in B minor:

That makes for a nice tie-in to my piece, which was inspired by Bach’s Mass in B minor.

The current setting of my piece is for string quartet. It’s a piece I always envisioned being sung by a choir, but I would have to transpose it to a different key (which I may do in the future) for that purpose, as the notes don’t fit the usual vocal ranges of a church choir. I warn you that it is somewhat rhythmically monotonous, but I like the various resolution of the different dissonances — and I hope that for a 2 1/2 minute piece, you find that it has an arc to it that makes up for the dirge-like rhythm.

Here is the score:

Offering

And here it is as performed by a wooden MIDI string emsemble:

I always saw it as a Kyrie, since the very beginning was inspired by the Kyrie from Bach’s B minor mass. Here are a few seconds from the Kyrie from Bach’s B minor mass so you can see the similarity of the opening:

Happy listening! Soli Deo gloria.

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]

6/27/2019

The Women in Whom E. Jean Carroll Confided Go Public

Filed under: Uncategorized — Patterico @ 7:56 am

E. Jean Carroll is the woman saying Donald Trump had a sexual encounter with her 23 years ago, which many people describe as rape. (She doesn’t call it rape, as we will see.) Yesterday, the women in whom Carroll confided went public with their stories, kind of. It was done in a podcast called “The Daily” with a New York Times reporter. The podcast was released today, and I just finished listening to it.

Now that I have heard the story, it doesn’t sound like it was clear to Trump that Carroll was not consenting.

The interview is done very badly. I don’t know if the women made it a condition that they get together with one another and with E. Jean Carroll all at the same time, but that’s how the interview was done. If your goal was to find out what the women independently remember about what Carroll told them, forget it. You barely hear from them in the podcast. It’s certainly an unusual way to conduct an interview that is supposed to be corroboration of Carroll. It begins with Carroll recounting the whole incident, in the presence of the other two women. Minimal details are elicited from the two women about what Carroll actually said at the time. Most of the story comes from Carroll.

And even coming from Carroll, it doesn’t sound like it was necessarily clear to Trump that Carroll was not consenting. She herself refuses to call it rape. She describes a lot of flirtatious banter between her and Trump, which she thought was fantastic. The encounter began with Trump soliciting her advice about lingerie, and quickly turned to a teasing conversation about who was going to try on the lingerie: her, or Trump. (Trump said she should. She said Trump should.) They get to the dressing room and then he moves on her. She never says a word throughout the encounter — no “what are you doing?” or “no!” But she does describe it as a fight.

When she called the first woman, Lisa Birnbach, Carroll says she thought it was great material and was still laughing about it. Birnbach says that what Carroll was describing sounded like rape. According to Birnbach, she asked Carroll: “He raped you?” and Carroll made a noise like “ehhh.” Then the woman said that Carroll should go to the police, and Carroll flatly refused.

When Carroll called the second woman, Carol Martin, Martin told her to tell nobody. That’s about all you hear from Martin.

Almost nothing about what Carroll actually said to the women comes out of the women’s mouths in the podcast. It’s mostly Carroll describing the incident, and New York Times reporters flapping their meatholes.

But the overall impression one gets is that Donald Trump maybe just thought he had a quick sexual encounter with this woman. That she was interested in him because he was famous, and that she found the whole thing funny — before and after the encounter, certainly, if perhaps not during the encounter.

It’s not what I expected going in.

Terrible job by the New York Times. And I say that as someone who despises Donald Trump.

6/25/2019

President Trump’s Chief Of Protocol Out

Filed under: Uncategorized — Dana @ 10:04 pm

[guest post by Dana]

Per NBC News:

The Trump administration’s chief of protocol in the State Department has been pulled off the job just ahead of the G-20 summit amid an investigation into allegations of discrimination and harassment, U.S. officials said. He is not expected to return to his job.

Two U.S. officials said that employees in the chief of protocol’s office had been informed that Ambassador Sean Lawler had been suspended indefinitely pending the outcome of the investigation. A third official said that Lawler had told the State Department’s leadership he planned to submit his resignation to President Donald Trump after the G-20 summit, which starts Friday in Osaka, Japan.

Lawler, a political appointee, was nominated by Trump to the position in September 2017 and given the rank of ambassador. He was confirmed by the Senate in November 2017.

[…]

The U.S. officials who told NBC News about Lawler’s situation declined to elaborate on the specifics of the allegations, other than to say that numerous employees in his office had resigned in protest of his management and behavior.

Among the behaviors that had caused concern, according to two U.S. officials, is that Lawler was known to carry a whip at work in what was perceived as an attempt to intimidate colleagues.

The way it’s been going, perhaps instead of taking on “only the best people,” President Trump should’ve aimed lower and shot for simple mediocrity.

–Dana

A Thoughtful Initial Response To Migrant Children Being Held At Border Patrol Station

Filed under: Uncategorized — Dana @ 6:23 pm

[guest post by Dana]

There is nothing about the border crisis that is not overwhelming. The Border Patrol is overwhelmed by sheer numbers of migrants crossing the border. A facility designed to house 100 detainees is now having to hold more than 300 individuals. And the number of unaccompanied children is overwhelming. As elected officials on both sides of the aisle attempt to advantageously use the crisis of children being detained in unacceptable conditions and push their party’s agenda, I was pleasantly surprised to read a response that mirrored my own. Because whatever the reason for these children landing here, it is through no fault of their own. Anyway, the intent of my post isn’t to argue the politics of illegal immigration, but rather write a small post about me nodding my head in agreement.

The Associated Press tweeted a link to their report about the 300+ children that were moved out of an overwhelmed Texas border station due to unsanitary and unhygienic conditions:

Untitled

The U.S. government has removed most children from a remote Border Patrol station in Texas near the border with Mexico following reports that more than 300 children were detained there and caring for each other with inadequate food, water and sanitation.

Only about 30 children remained at the station outside El Paso on Monday, Rep. Veronica Escobar said after her office was briefed on the situation by a U.S. Customs and Border Protection official.

Most of the infants, toddlers and teens who were held at the Border Patrol station in Clint, Texas, were scheduled to be transferred by Tuesday to shelters and other facilities run by a separate federal agency, the Office of Refugee Resettlement said.

Attorneys involved in monitoring care for migrant children who visited Clint last week said older children were trying to take care of toddlers, The Associated Press reported Thursday. They described a 4-year-old with matted hair who had gone without a shower for days, and hungry, inconsolable children struggling to soothe one another. Some had been locked for three weeks inside the facility, where 15 children were sick with the flu and another 10 were in medical quarantine.

(Other reports note that area residents have left donations of diapers, baby wipes, soap and toothbrushes at the station office but the items were rejected by Border Patrol. No reason for the rejection was given.)

Theologian, pastor, and the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission President Dr. Russell Moore tweeted in response to the report:

Untitled

The reports of the conditions for migrant children at the border should shock all of our consciences. Those created in the image of God should be treated with dignity and compassion, especially those seeking refuge from violence back home. We can do better than this.

No matter where one falls on the immigration spectrum, it would seem at the very least, that this is the correct initial reaction. It is a response rooted in compassion, not politics. It is a response rooted in the basic idea that everyone has intrinsic value. It is a response rooted in the Christian exhortation to love our neighbors as ourselves. And lastly, it is a response rooted in the belief that, through the grace of God and because of the grace of God, we can indeed do better. What this response isn’t, is a call for open borders or a call to ignore our immigration laws. And it isn’t a call to close the border either.

Anyway, what a stark contrast between Dr. Moore’s encouragement toward a reaction reflecting something of God, and that of Jerry Falwell, Jr.:

Untitled

Who are you @drmoore ? Have you ever made a payroll? Have you ever built an organization of any type from scratch? What gives you authority to speak on any issue? I’m being serious. You’re nothing but an employee- a bureaucrat.

Oh hell, I’ve never made a payroll either. And I’ve never built an organization from scratch (just like you, Jerry!). And you know what, I’m not even an employee any longer but here I am schooling you, you arrogant weenie. And last I read, Jerry, there were a couple of noted yahoos in the Book who also weren’t technically “qualified” to speak on certain issues – and between you and me, they lied, lusted, cheated and deceived their way through life – yet crazily enough, God still anointed them as qualified to speak with the greatest of authority on His behalf. Go figure.

–Dana

6/24/2019

Follow-Up: President Trump Responds To Writer’s Rape Accusation

Filed under: Uncategorized — Dana @ 6:36 pm

[guest post by Dana]

President Trump, during an interview with The Hill, was asked about the recent rape allegation made by writer E. Jean Carroll:

“I’ll say it with great respect: Number one, she’s not my type. Number two, it never happened. It never happened, OK?” the president said while seated behind the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office.

When asked if Carroll was lying, Trump on Monday repeated his assertion that he had never met her.

“Totally lying. I don’t know anything about her,” he said. “I know nothing about this woman. I know nothing about her. She is — it’s just a terrible thing that people can make statements like that.”

If it were any other president facing an accusation of rape, I would think it bizarre of him to use his accuser’s looks to bolster his claims of innocence. How could I possibly be guilty? I mean, have you seen her?? But given that it’s Trump we’re talking about, and given that we’ve been down this rabbit hole for two years now, it’s actually the exact sort of thing I would expect him to say.

–Dana

Ultra-Rich Pleading To Be Taxed More

Filed under: Uncategorized — Dana @ 3:17 pm

[guest post by Dana]

Of course they can just send a check to the US Treasury anytime they want, but hey, given how the federal government consistently pays off its debts and regularly balances the budget through disciplined and restrained spending, why not ask them to mandate the collection of more American dollars, am I right?!

In a letter sent to candidates Monday, 18 members of some of the nation’s wealthiest families advocated for a wealth tax on people who amassed great personal fortunes, including themselves.

“We are writing to call on all candidates for president, whether they are Republicans or Democrats, to support a moderate wealth tax on the fortunes of the richest one-tenth of the richest 1% of Americans — on us,” said the letter, which was first published in the New York Times Monday.

It said that millions of middle-class Americans already pay a wealth tax annually on their primary form of wealth: property taxes on their homes. The letter points out that Democratic candidates Elizabeth Warren, Beto O’Rourke and Pete Buttigieg have proposed a wealth tax. But the letter’s writers said, “Some ideas are too important for America to be part of only a few candidates’ platforms.”

The letter said the wealth of the top 1/10th of 1% is nearly equal to the wealth of the lowest 90% of American households. “Those of us signing this letter enjoy uncommon fortunes, but each of us wants to live in an America that solves the biggest challenges of our common future,” it said.

The letter lists six key reasons for the wealth tax, and how it can be used in a positive way: It can help fight climate change; would be an economic winner for all Americans; it will make Americans healthier; it is the fair thing to do; it would strengthen American freedom and democracy, and it would be the patriotic thing to do.

Apparently there are not all Democrats are happy about the plan:

The wealth tax isn’t embraced by all Democrats, though, with some arguing it would be difficult to objectively assess the value of wealth like artwork and jewels or illiquid assets. There are also concerns that such a tax is unconstitutional because the federal government is prohibited from taxing property, only income.

And again, the uber-wealthy don’t seem to understand that they don’t have to be compelled by the strong arm of government to give their money to any institution they choose, including the federal government:

“If we don’t do something like this, what are we doing, just hoarding this wealth in a country that’s falling apart at the seams?” Pritzker Simmons said. “That’s not the America we want to live in.”

Of course, now that Bernie has proposed his massive, self-described “revolutionary” plan to erase the country’s $1.6 trillion outstanding student loan debt, those billionaires are really going to need to pony up:

The Democratic presidential candidate’s legislation — dubbed “The College for All Act” — will release all 45 million Americans from their student debt and be paid for with a new tax on Wall Street transactions.

The proposal goes further than fellow Democratic candidate Elizabeth Warren’s plan, which caps student debt forgiveness at $50,000 and offers no relief to borrowers who earn more than $250,000.

The $2.2 trillion plan would be paid for by a new tax on financial transactions, including a 0.5 percent tax on stock transactions and a 0.1 percent tax on bonds. That levy would raise up to $2.4 trillion over the next decade, according to the senator’s office.

Sanders’ plan would make two- and four-year public colleges and universities tuition- and debt-free. Trade schools and apprenticeship programs would be tuition-free, as well.

It’s funny how working to fix the basic problems of overspending and overcharging never enter the equation.

No, these people aren’t exhausting at all.

–Dana

UK Court of Appeal Overturns Decision to Force Mentally Disabled Woman To Have Abortion

Filed under: Uncategorized — Dana @ 11:12 am

[guest post by Dana]

From the Catholic News Agency:

A controversial UK court decision to force a disabled woman to have an abortion has been overturned on appeal.

In a decision reportedly reached June 24, the English Court of Appeal, consisting of Lord Justice McCombe, Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Peter Jackson, overturned the previous ruling of the Court of Protection.

According to Press Association reports, the judges said they would issue a full explanation of their decision at a later date, but that the circumstances of the case were “unique.”

This follows Justice Nathalie Lieven’s outrageous decision to force a mentally disabled woman to have an abortion at 22 weeks pregnant. As you recall, the disabled woman’s mother, who is a member of the Nigerian Igbo community, devout Catholic, and former midwife told the court that the decision violated her religious and cultural beliefs, and that she would raise the baby. But Lieven did not consider that a compelling enough reason to allow the baby to live, believing that the trauma of giving birth, or putting the baby up for adoption or into foster care would be worse for the young woman to experience than having an abortion.

The grandmother’s legal team appealed the decision:

Barrister John McKendrick QC, who is leading the woman’s mother’s legal team, told the judge: “It is accepted that (the woman) lacks capacity to conduct these proceedings and to make a decision in respect of whether or not to consent to a termination and associated ancillary treatment.

“That being said, (her mother) considers that the applicant has underestimated (her) ability and understanding, and that more weight should be place on her wishes and feelings.”

Mr McKendrick said “Termination is not in (the woman’s) best interests.”

He also said that the judge had “no proper evidence” to show that allowing the pregnancy to continue would put the woman’s life or long-term health at grave risk.

“The applicants have failed to carry out a proper best interests analysis,” he said.“Their evidence is premised on a narrow clinical view. The application must be dismissed.”

As a result of Lieven’s decision, “thousands signed a petition pushing for U.K. Health and Social Care Secretary Matthew Hancock to intervene in the case”. Also, the report notes that a UK Right to Life group had 75,000 signatures protesting the decision. Additionally, two Catholic bishops from the UK spoke out against the decision:

“Forcing a woman to have an abortion against her will, and that of her close family, infringes upon her human rights, not to mention the right of her unborn child to life in a family that has committed to caring for the child,” said Bishop John Sherrington, an auxilary bishop of the Archdiocese of Westminster.

Sherrington serves as the designated spokesman on life issues for the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales.

“In a free society like ours there is a delicate balance between the rights of the individual and the powers of the state,” he added. “This is a sad and distressing decision for the whole family whom we keep in our prayers. This case, for which all information is not available, raises serious questions about the meaning of ‘best interests’ when a patient lacks mental capacity and is subject to the court’s decision against her will.”

This, this, this:

We should be outraged that a government-affiliated health establishment is fighting to kill a fully developed baby against the wishes of the mother and grandmother, and also that Justice Nathalie Lieven—who has admitted that all evidence indicates the disabled woman wants to keep her baby—has ruled that the child should be aborted. This case exposes how far the tyranny of the abortion regime extends. In a society that has decided the unborn have no rights, the worth and life of the unborn are determined by the most powerful.

Score 1 for life.

–Dana

6/23/2019

Music by My Dad

Filed under: Uncategorized — Patterico @ 8:11 pm

My sister asked me today to write down a song that my dad wrote as a kid. She wants her daughter, my niece, to learn it. I think Dad told us that he was 12 years old when he wrote it. He never wrote it down, but he taught me to play the song, and I never forgot it. Now that Dad’s gone, I think I’m the only person in the world who knows how to play it, or knows how it goes.

I hope that will change now.

My sister’s request motivated me to learn (awkwardly so far) a music note-writing program called NoteFlight. I wrote down Dad’s piece over the last couple of hours and exported it to a .pdf. It also made a nice MIDI file which very roughly approximates what the song sounds like when I play it.

I’m pleased to share it with you. It’s not right that this neat little tune should be lost to the world, so here’s my attempt to preserve it. Pianists, feel free to print out the tune and give it to anyone you like.

Sheet music:

Dad's Song

You can hit the arrows at the bottom left of this embedded image to scroll back and forth between the two pages. You have to hover the cursor over the image to see the arrows.

MIDI file (as a .wav). This sounds a little robotic as it’s just a rendition of a MIDI file by a computer program, but hey. It’s better than nothing.

Nice job, Dad.

U.K. Orders Mentally Disabled Woman 22 Weeks Pregnant To Abort Her Baby

Filed under: Uncategorized — Dana @ 1:55 pm

[guest post by Dana]

Justice Nathalie Lieven has ordered a disabled woman who is 22 weeks pregnant, to undergo an abortion due to her mental limitations (she has the mental capacity of a “grade-school” child). Lieven claims that this decision has been made with the woman’s best interest at heart:

“I am acutely conscious of the fact that for the State to order a woman to have a termination where it appears that she doesn’t want it is an immense intrusion,” said Justice Nathalie Lieven in her ruling in the Court of Protection, June 21.

“I have to operate in [her] best interests, not on society’s views of termination,” Lieven explained, arguing that her decision is in the best interest of the woman.

The Court of Protection handles cases involving individuals judged to lack the mental capacity to make decisions for themselves.

The woman, who cannot been publicly identified, has been described as “in her twenties,” and is under the care of an NHS trust, part of the UK’s National Health Service.

Doctors at the trust wished to abort her pregnancy and argued that, due to her diminished mental capacity, the abortion would be less traumatic for the woman than giving birth, especially if the baby would then be placed in foster care.

This in spite of the young woman’s mother being against a forced abortion, and telling the court that she would take care of the baby herself:

Barrister John McKendrick, who is leading the legal team for the pregnant woman’s mother, says the court has “no proper evidence” that having an abortion will be beneficial to the pregnant mother. “Their evidence is premised on a narrow clinical view. The application must be dismissed,” McKendrick said. The pregnant woman’s mother has added that abortion strongly violates her family’s Catholic values and that she would raise her grandchild herself.

A social worker who works with the young woman also said the pregnancy should be allowed to continue.

Not good enough for Judge Lieven:

The judge said she did not believe the woman understood what it meant to have a baby.

“I think she would like to have a baby in the same way she would like to have a nice doll,” Lieven said.

Lieven also said she did not believe the woman’s mother, who already helps care for her daughter, would be able to offer care for a grandchild at the same time.

Without knowing the specifics of the mental disability (does she get violent, is she compliant, etc.), it’s as if the judge believes no one has ever taken care of more than one child at a time, or taken care of a young adult with a mental disability while providing care to a baby. If this is the real concern, and the young woman is under the care of the NHS, why not offer to provide home visits by nurses or health aides to assist the grandmother? Is this an impossible ask? If the woman is a practicing Catholic and attends church, would there be no effort made by parishioners to spend time helping her care for the baby and daughter? In my experience, coming alongside families in need is one of the best things church bodies do for those in their midst.

But to this court, terminating the baby’s life – a baby who is more than halfway through gestation – is the only viable option. It’s a neater and swifter fix to the problem. As if an abortion and its aftermath is not at all upsetting, painful, confusing, and an overall soul-crushing, heart-wrenching experience. How dare the court presume that this procedure will just be the simple excision of an intrusive interruption in the life of a young woman with diminished capacity. Nothing more than a little blip on the radar, as if the young woman doesn’t have a heart and a soul and a capacity for love.

The judge also decided that, along with giving birth, putting the baby up for adoption or placed into foster care would not be in the woman’s best interest. Again, the only viable option is ending the baby’s life because to the court, the baby in the womb obviously has no personhood:

“I think [the woman] would suffer greater trauma from having a baby removed [from her care],” Lieven said, because “it would at that stage be a real baby.”

Lieven clarified that the pregnancy “although real to [the woman], doesn’t have a baby outside her body she can touch.”

So everything but allowing the woman to give birth to her baby is in her best interest. This exemplifies an unbelievable level of inhumanity, and overreach by the Court. Ending the life of innocents seems to be the face of the NHS and socialized medicine: Charlie Gard.

It’s insightful to read a little background on Lieven:

As a lawyer, Lieven has appeared in court before in cases concerning abortion. In 2011, while representing the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, an abortion provider, she argued that British women should be permitted to medically abort their pregnancies at their own homes instead of in a hospital.

Five years later, Lieven argued in court that Northern Ireland’s abortion laws were a violation of the United Kingdom’s Human Rights Act.

In 2017, she said that Northern Ireland’s abortion laws were akin to torture and were discriminatory.

The BBC reports on ethical arguments concerning the abortion of babies with disabilities here, and concludes the report with societal goals on the treatment of those with disabilities. As you read, keep in mind that in this case, it is the mother who has a mental disability, not the baby, and keep in mind the court’s rationale for their order to have the baby aborted:

Modern society believes certain things about people with disability:

People with disabilities should not be discriminated against in any way
Society should do everything reasonable to remove anything that gets in the way of disabled people playing a full part in ordinary life
Prejudice against disabled people is not acceptable
Stereotypes about disability should be eliminated

It’s all so ironic when you consider that the grandmother willingly gave birth to a baby who with a disability, and now the daughter with the disability is pregnant and being forced to abort her baby because there is simply no other viable option in the eyes of the court. And while the grandmother may not have known about the disability before she gave birth to her daughter, at some point after she became aware of it, and yet chose to keep the child and not put her into foster care or give her up for adoption. Thankfully, there are still people in this sad world who believe in love, no matter what form its arrival takes in their lives. And even though the grandmother said she would care for the baby – a baby who has not been identified with any disability and is perfectly innocent in every way – according to the court, that is not enough to escape death. The baby must not be allowed to live. The grandmother, whose faith prohibits the taking of innocent life and who chose to love and care for her disabled daughter, is irrelevant.

–Dana

Sunday Music: Bach Cantata BWV 127

Filed under: Uncategorized — Patterico @ 12:01 am

It is the second Sunday after Pentecost. Today’s Bach cantata is “Herr Jesu Christ, wahr’ Mensch und Gott” (Lord Jesus Christ, true Man and God).

Today’s Gospel reading is Luke 8:26-39:

Jesus Restores a Demon-Possessed Man

They sailed to the region of the Gerasenes, which is across the lake from Galilee. When Jesus stepped ashore, he was met by a demon-possessed man from the town. For a long time this man had not worn clothes or lived in a house, but had lived in the tombs. When he saw Jesus, he cried out and fell at his feet, shouting at the top of his voice, “What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beg you, don’t torture me!” For Jesus had commanded the impure spirit to come out of the man. Many times it had seized him, and though he was chained hand and foot and kept under guard, he had broken his chains and had been driven by the demon into solitary places.

Jesus asked him, “What is your name?”

“Legion,” he replied, because many demons had gone into him. And they begged Jesus repeatedly not to order them to go into the Abyss.

A large herd of pigs was feeding there on the hillside. The demons begged Jesus to let them go into the pigs, and he gave them permission. When the demons came out of the man, they went into the pigs, and the herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and was drowned.

When those tending the pigs saw what had happened, they ran off and reported this in the town and countryside, and the people went out to see what had happened. When they came to Jesus, they found the man from whom the demons had gone out, sitting at Jesus’ feet, dressed and in his right mind; and they were afraid. Those who had seen it told the people how the demon-possessed man had been cured. Then all the people of the region of the Gerasenes asked Jesus to leave them, because they were overcome with fear. So he got into the boat and left.

The man from whom the demons had gone out begged to go with him, but Jesus sent him away, saying, “Return home and tell how much God has done for you.” So the man went away and told all over town how much Jesus had done for him.

The text of today’s piece is available here. It contains these words, reminding one of the way the demon-possessed man addressed Jesus as “Jesus, Son of the Most High God”:

Lord Jesus Christ, true Man and God,
You who suffered martyrdom, anguish and ridicule,
at the end also died for me on the Cross
and won for me Your Father’s favor,
I ask, through Your bitter suffering:
Be merciful to me, a sinner.

Happy listening! Soli Deo gloria.

6/21/2019

Author Claims Trump Sexually Assaulted Her in Lingerie Department Dressing Room

Filed under: Uncategorized — Dana @ 4:30 pm

[guest post by Dana]

In E. Jean Carroll’s upcoming book, “What Do We Need Men For? A Modest Proposal,” due to be released in July, the author claims that Donald Trump sexually assaulted her after encountering him in Bergdorf Goodman. Why didn’t Elle columnist and former television host Carroll go public with her story sooner? Say like when he was running for the presidency? Well, she’ll tell you why. In her recounting of the event, she meets skeptical readers head-on:

Why haven’t I “come forward” before now?

Receiving death threats, being driven from my home, being dismissed, being dragged through the mud, and joining the 15 women who’ve come forward with credible stories about how the man grabbed, badgered, belittled, mauled, molested, and assaulted them, only to see the man turn it around, deny, threaten, and attack them, never sounded like much fun. Also, I am a coward.

Thus she joins 15 other women who have made accusations of sexual misconduct against President Trump.

According to Carroll, it began when she happened to bump into Donald Trump, whom she had met once before, in Bergdorf Goodman. She describes a light-hearted romp through the store to help him find a gift for a woman:

I am surprised at how good-looking he is. We’ve met once before, and perhaps it is the dusky light but he looks prettier than ever. This has to be in the fall of 1995 or the spring of 1996 because he’s garbed in a faultless topcoat and I’m wearing my black wool Donna Karan coatdress and high heels but not a coat.

“Come advise me,” says the man. “I gotta buy a present.”

“Oh!” I say, charmed. “For whom?”

“A girl,” he says.

“Don’t the assistants of your secretaries buy things like that?” I say.

“Not this one,” he says. Or perhaps he says, “Not this time.” I can’t recall. He is a big talker, and from the instant we collide, he yammers about himself like he’s Alexander the Great ready to loot Babylon.

As we are standing just inside the door, I point to the handbags. “How about—”

“No!” he says, making the face where he pulls up both lips like he’s balancing a spoon under his nose, and begins talking about how he once thought about buying Bergdorf ’s.

“Or … a hat!” I say enthusiastically, walking toward the handbags, which, at the period I’m telling you about — and Bergdorf’s has been redone two or three times since then — are mixed in with, and displayed next to, the hats. “She’ll love a hat! You can’t go wrong with a hat!”

I don’t remember what he says, but he comes striding along — greeting a Bergdorf sales attendant like he owns the joint and permitting a shopper to gape in awe at him — and goes right for a fur number.

“Please,” I say. “No woman would wear a dead animal on her head!”

What he replies I don’t recall, but I remember he coddles the fur hat like it’s a baby otter.

“How old is the lady in question?” I ask.

“How old are you?” replies the man, fondling the hat and looking at me like Louis Leakey carbon-dating a thighbone he’s found in Olduvai Gorge.

“I’m 52,” I tell him.

“You’re so old!” he says, laughing — he was around 50 himself — and it’s at about this point that he drops the hat, looks in the direction of the escalator, and says, “Lingerie!” Or he may have said “Underwear!” So we stroll to the escalator. I don’t remember anybody else greeting him or galloping up to talk to him, which indicates how very few people are in the store at the time.

According to Carroll, it’s in the lingerie department where things turned ugly but not until after they playfully banter about which of them should try on the lingerie that he grabbed from the counter.

At this point in her story, Carroll confirms that there is no available security footage to back up her story (Bergdorf Goodman did not retain any footage from that time), and that she didn’t report the encounter to the police but did tell two close friends about what happened in the dressing room:

I told two close friends. The first, a journalist, magazine writer, correspondent on the TV morning shows, author of many books, etc., begged me to go to the police.

“He raped you,” she kept repeating when I called her. “He raped you. Go to the police! I’ll go with you. We’ll go together.”

My second friend is also a journalist, a New York anchorwoman. She grew very quiet when I told her, then she grasped both my hands in her own and said, “Tell no one. Forget it! He has 200 lawyers. He’ll bury you.” (Two decades later, both still remember the incident clearly and confirmed their accounts to New York.)

And here’s what Carroll claims happened once inside the dressing room:

The moment the dressing-room door is closed, he lunges at me, pushes me against the wall, hitting my head quite badly, and puts his mouth against my lips. I am so shocked I shove him back and start laughing again. He seizes both my arms and pushes me up against the wall a second time, and, as I become aware of how large he is, he holds me against the wall with his shoulder and jams his hand under my coat dress and pulls down my tights.

I am astonished by what I’m about to write: I keep laughing. The next moment, still wearing correct business attire, shirt, tie, suit jacket, overcoat, he opens the overcoat, unzips his pants, and, forcing his fingers around my private area, thrusts his penis halfway — or completely, I’m not certain — inside me. It turns into a colossal struggle. I am wearing a pair of sturdy black patent-leather four-inch Barneys high heels, which puts my height around six-one, and I try to stomp his foot. I try to push him off with my one free hand — for some reason, I keep holding my purse with the other — and I finally get a knee up high enough to push him out and off and I turn, open the door, and run out of the dressing room.

The whole episode lasts no more than three minutes. I do not believe he ejaculates. I don’t remember if any person or attendant is now in the lingerie department. I don’t remember if I run for the elevator or if I take the slow ride down on the escalator. As soon as I land on the main floor, I run through the store and out the door — I don’t recall which door — and find myself outside on Fifth Avenue.

Bloomberg News has published a statement from President Trump in response to Carroll’s allegations, saying `I’ve never met this person in my life':

Untitled

CNN’s Daniel Dale posts a photograph of Trump and his first wife socializing with Carroll and her former husband:

Untitled

I completely understand why she didn’t go to the police and file a report. And I even understand why she remained silent all of these years. This especially if you read the entirety of the released portion of her book linked in the post. But what puzzles me (and maybe I’m just old school) is: Why would she would enter the confines of a dressing room with a man she had only met on one prior occasion? Who does that? (I’ll just note here that even if their mutually playful banter was an indication that there was the hope of something happening once inside the dressing room, it would obviously never justify the actions that Carroll has alleged that Trump took against her.)

As for Trump, well, Carroll’s description of the encounter neatly dovetails with Trump’s own description of himself: :

I just start kissing them, it’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything,” he said in the 2005 conversation. “Grab ’em by the pussy.”

Obviously none of know with certainty what, if anything happened between Trump and Carroll, but here’s the thing: Two women in whom she confided, have confirmed that she told them about the alleged assault. That alone matters. That alone is troubling. I hope they go public. And if the assault did happen as described by Carroll, then it should matter to Americans. And especially to those who support Trump, and are working toward his re-election. Because if an illegal act as described by Carroll took place at the hands of a man who is seeking to be re-elected as President of the United States and doesn’t matter to his supporters, then something is dreadfully wrong. Oh. Wait. What’s that? Right: We pretty much already know it won’t matter, and will be viewed as nothing more than a little blip on people’s radar. If that.

P.S. Carroll says that “the Donna Karan coatdress still hangs on the back of my closet door, unworn and unlaundered since that evening”.

–Dana

Next Page »

Powered by WordPress.