The Raving Theist

Dedicated to Jesus Christ, Now and Forever

2009 March

It’s the Children!

March 31, 2009 | 27 Comments

“Pro-lifers only care about babies before they are born.”   The accusation is false, but for a change today I’ll focus on a threat facing some of the most vulnerable among the post-born. Specifically, those kids whose safety may depend on social workers at child welfare agencies.

The threat in this case is a particular social worker with a Delaware agency: Vice President Joe Biden’s cokehead daughter. She was caught on video a few weeks ago snorting cocaine with dollar bills, cursing and complaining that the lines weren’t long enough.

However we may disagree about abortion, we can find common ground in the proposition that born children shouldn’t be cared for by drug addicts. Indeed, an oft-repeated pro-choice argument is that children are better off dead than entrusted to such individuals. So let’s hope that CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and MSNBC are vigilant in exposing Biden’s daughter as a danger to America’s kids. The scandal is certainly at least as relevant the marijuana-related arrest of Sarah Palin — no, Sarah Palin’s daughter — no, Sarah Palin’s daughter’s boyfriend — no, Sarah Palin’s daughter’s boyfriend’s mother — which occurred after Palin lost the election.  In contrast, Biden is the sitting Vice President!

And while they’re at it, the press should vigorously pursue the following questions:

Does Biden’s daughter come to work high on cocaine?

Does Biden’s daughter sell cocaine to the children she counsels?

Does President Obama sell Biden’s daughter the cocaine?

(Obama has never indicated when he stopped doing “blow,” as he calls it, so there’s no guarantee that he did. We do know that he is addicted to cigarettes, and that he lied about quitting that habit. And since we’ve never gotten the name of his drug dealer, for all we know he dealt it himself).

Is TARP money used for any of the dollar bills that Biden’s daughter rolls to snort coke with?

Perhaps New York Times reporter Jody Kantor should lead this important investigation. During the presidential campaign, she sent Facebook e-mails to the teenaged friends of Cindy McCain’s 16 year old daughter to “get a sense” of what Cindy was like as a mother. Biden’s daughter is fully 27, with a mother-like responsibilty for children herself. We need to know what kind of a social worker she is.

It’s the children!

Karma Chameleons

March 28, 2009 | 42 Comments

The reality-based community is working overtime to heap scorn upon pro-life activist Gingi Edmonds for pointing out that the victims of the Montana plane crash perished near the Tomb of the Unborn, and that they were the family of the owner of the nation’s largest for-profit abortion chain. For example, Kevin Beck calls her “hateful,” “angry,” an “embarassment,” and “human swinehood.” In a comment, he predicts that “[h]er reputation is never going to recover from this.”

Let’s suppose, instead, that Gingi was talking about a disaster with a greater toll on human life. Like the earthquake in China last year that killed not 14, but 80,000 — including thousands of children and babies. Let’s say that she used these words to suggest that China’s treatment of Tibet was responsible:

Then all this earthquake and all this stuff happened, and I thought, is that karma? When you’re not nice, that the bad things happen to you?

Obama-endorser Sharon Stone said that, but her reputation seemed to recover just fine. In fact, she was invited to the Presidental inauguration. Nobody protested her attendance there — in fact, the only fuss at all was the hissy fit that she threw when the organizers wouldn’t admit her entire entourage.

I suggest that there is a scientific reason for the lack of outrage. Having controlled for all other variables that might explain the quick forgiveness accorded Stone for her statement, I have determined that there is only one factor that would explain why she is not a social pariah. She loves baby-killing!

NOTE: Beck helpfully links to Andrea Shea King’s radio interview with Gingi Edmonds earlier this week. Among other things, she discusses her efforts to warn others of Feldkamp’s abortion business (passing out flyers to patients of his dentistry chain and informing his neighbors) and her views on President Obama and Governor Kathleen Sebelius. Notably, she relates that she used to be roommates with the survivor of a partial birth abortion.

For her part, King makes reference to a fascinating interview she did with a man whose mother chose adoption over abortion 42 years ago. He tracked her down last year.  The mother’s name is Andrea Shea King.

The Hand of God?

March 26, 2009 | 119 Comments

Irving “Bud” Feldkamp, the owner of the nation’s largest for-profit abortion chain, lost nine family members when their plane crashed into a Montana cemetery — not far from the Tomb for the Unborn, dedicated to all babies killed by abortion. The victims, pictured below, were Feldkamp’s five young grandchildren, his two daughters and their husbands. One daughter was a pediatrician and the other a dental hygienist; one husband was a dentist and the other an ophthalmologist.


Pro-life activist Gingi Edmonds, writing in the Christian Newswire, had this commentary on the tragedy:

In my time working for Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust, I helped organize and conduct a weekly campaign where youth activists stood outside of Feldkamp’s mini-mansion in Redlands holding fetal development signs and raising community awareness regarding Feldkamp’s dealings in child murder for profit. Every Thursday afternoon we called upon Bud and his wife Pam to repent, seek God’s blessing and separate themselves from the practice of child killing.

We warned him, for his children’s sake, to wash his hands of the innocent blood he assisted in spilling because, as Scripture warns, if “you did not hate bloodshed, bloodshed will pursue you.” (Ezekiel 35:6)

A news source states that Bud Feldkamp visited the site of the crash with his wife and their 2 surviving children on Monday. As they stood near the twisted and charred debris talking with investigators, light snow fell on the tarps that covered the remains of their children.

I don’t want to turn this tragic event into some creepy spiritual “I told you so” moment, but I think of the time spent outside of Feldkamp’s – Pam Feldkamp laughing at the fetal development signs, Bud Feldkamp trying not to make eye contact as he got into his car with a small child in tow – and I think of the haunting words, “Think of your children.” I wonder if those words were haunting Feldkamp as well as he stood in the snow among the remains of loved ones, just feet from the Tomb of the Unborn?

I only hope and pray that in the face of this tragedy, Feldkamp recognizes his need for repentance and reformation. I pray that God will use this unfortunate catastrophe to soften the hearts of Bud and Pam and that they will draw close to the Lord and wash their hands of the blood of thousands of innocent children, each as precious and irreplaceable as their own.

Professor PZ Myers of Pharyngula finds Gingi’s “hideous” and “evil” and declares her to be a “moral cretin.” He writes:

All I can feel is horror at the kinds of monsters who would find grim satisfaction in the death of 6 to 10 year old children, as if it were payback for abortion. At amoral pious hypocrites who would regard this as an opportunity to assault human beings broken-hearted by pain and loss, to proselytize for the bloody-handed god of their death cult, to compound agony with accusations of guilt. There is no humanity left in these sanctimonious creatures, it’s been bled out and replaced with fanaticism and dogma.

* * *

It’s a piece that reveals so much about the author: her own unconcern for human life, and her smug obliviousness of the fact that she is taking advantage of a tragedy to say her petty “I told you so”.

Once again, I am confirmed in my opinion that Christianity is a breeder of evil, a cesspit in which the most hateful and inhuman commitment to lies and delusions can ferment. Don’t ever preach at me about Christian morality: I’ve seen it, and it is empty of love for humanity, replaced with sanctimonious idolatry and commitment to dead, dumb superstition.

Myers later points out that one of the women on the plane was five months pregnant. It might also be noted that Feldkamp was a major donor and big supporter of pro-life obstetrician/gynecologist/Presidential candidate Ron Paul.

I will save the question regarding God’s will for last. I’ll start by identifying some reasons that I believe Professor Myer’s outrage is misplaced, whether analyzed from a religious or atheistic perpective.

(1) Gingi Edmonds is not a hideous evil cretin because she dedicates her life to saving lives. Without activists like her, countless people would lose the joy of parenthood and grandparentood to predatory, profiteering abortion mills. Affording counsel, comfort and assistance to women who are under pressure to abort can change their hearts and lives and I have countless pictures to prove it. I don’t know what charitable activities Professor Myers pursues but from a utilitarian perspective I would wager than Gingi has brought at least as much joy into this world as he.

(2) Myers has not identified what harm flows from Gingi’s words other than his own apparent irritation. Presumably he fears that the family of the deceased will be offended by her words (a possibility greatly increased by his own circulation of the story). But the family is a Christian one and the question of God’s agency in the tragedy has undoubtedly already occurred to them. At the funeral, the question of why so many beautiful people were permitted to perish, or were actively called to God, will be discussed. Were Professor Myers sitting in the pews, he could level his “bloody-handed god of their death cult” regardless of what precise conclusion were reached. Myers attack on Gingi’s theology is equally an attack on their own. He is calling everyone who believes in God’s sovereignty “hideous” and “evil.”

(3) The atheism promoted on Myer’s blog will cause far more pain to the family that Gingi’s words. Myers declares that there is no God, that there is no hope for life after death, that families died for no reason, for nothing, and that they are gone forever. The incessant blasphemy against our Lord and Savior will only compound the insult and injury.

(4) Gingi’s words offer to salvage some good from the tragedy. Contrary to Myers’ speculation, Feldkamp may very well remember her words and change his ways. Former abortionist explains the tragedy that transformed his life:

As a physician in Troy, NY, I performed abortions in
my office for eight years. I believed it was “pro-woman” to provide this option. While abortion was never a major part of my practice, as time went on it caused me more and more conflict.

My wife and I were seeking to adopt a child, and all the while I was throwing other people’s children in the garbage at the rate of 9 or 10 a week. I began to think, “If only one of these women could give us her child.”

Eventually, my wife and I were successful in adopting a healthy girl, Heather. On June 23, 1984, Heather was hit by a car and died. When you lose your child, life is very different. Everything changes. That’s when things really changed for me regarding abortion. I realized as never before that the child I was killing in each abortion was somebody’s precious child. My own loss enabled me to value life even more.

I began to feel like a paid assassin . . . and that’s exactly what I was. My self-esteem plummeted, and so did my interest in doing abortions. In 1985 I stopped.

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a founder of NARAL who was responsible for over 75,000 abortions and personally aborted one of his own children, had a similar change of heart. Feldkamp may seriously reconsider whether he wishes to continue to profit off clinics which kill grandchildren without notifying the grandparent and which encourage frightened young women to abort their children at the most vulnerable times of their lives.

(5) In other contexts, the non-religious willingly accept such “conversions” brought about by tragedy. Consider, for example, this story from last week about an opium dealer whose wife and three children were killed in drug-related violence. He may have believed that drug dealing was a victimless crime, that his family was innocent, that their killing was unjustified, but he nevertheless regretted his participation in the industry. It may be that we find this sort of “justice” offensive, and we may sympathize with both the drug dealer and his family, but we recognize that some good may come out of the situation. Myers may reject the notion that a God could have a hand in any such tragedies; but if that is that case there is no sort of justice at all. Just a random, meaningless accident.

(6) Note that Myers’ outrage is directed solely at Gingi and her words, which did nothing to cause the tragedy. No similar venom is directed at the persons who might be presumed to bear greater moral responsibility than she, i.e., the ground crew, the flight crew, the pilot, etc. In this connection, one might observe that there is no outrage in the atheist blogosphere over the liberal Associated Press accounts of the crash to label the victims as “ultrarich.”

Ultimately, what most bothers Myers is how an infinitely rational being could contenance the shedding of innocent blood for some ulterior reason. It is only fair that I address that question. And I will do so, below the fold, with the words of the secular God whose answer to that precise question so many have found satisfactory.


A Question of Privacy

March 24, 2009 | 23 Comments

The baby died with a shot to the heart and was left dead next to a toilet. Twenty-six weeks pregnant, the mother, Michelle Armesto-Berge, did not want the abortion, and the father begged her to keep the child. But Michelle’s mother wanted the abortion, and Dr. George Tiller was eager to help. His staff piled more pressure on Michelle, refused to let her see the ultrasound, falsely recorded the baby’s condition as “non-viable” and killed it with a shot to the heart.

Dr. Tiller’s trial started this morning in a Kansas courtroom. He’s charged with nineteen misdemeanors — for paying a doctor to rubber-stamp his viability determinations rather than consulting an independent physician as required by law. Pro-life protestors are in force, outside the building praying for justice.

Tiller has had the proud support of Kansas pro-choice Governor Kathleen Sebelius, now President Obama’s nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services. Although she and her cabal have long decried the Tiller prosecution as a political witchhunt, there will be no pro-choice counter-demonstrators at the courthouse today. Diane Wahto of ProKanDo explains why:

“This is a woman’s issue. It’s an issue of privacy. It’s not an issue that people should be out praying in front of a courtroom over.”

Which women ProKanDo speaks for is unclear. It’s doubtful it speaks for Michelle Armesto-Berge or her murdered child. But there is one man it certainly speaks for. Although it’s identified in the article only as a “pro-choice group,” ProKanDo is the Political Action Committee of abortionist Geore Tiller.

Where Reality Exits

March 22, 2009 | 53 Comments

After President Obama mocked the Special Olympics on national television, Governor Sarah Palin condemned his “degrading remark about our world’s most precious and unique people.” This observation was too much for talk show host Bill Maher, who led a panel consisting of Senator Bernie Sanders, actress Kerry Washington and New York Times reporter Andrew Ross Sorkin in a round of hooting, hand-clapping laughter at Palin’s presumed stupidity. Things got a bit uncomfortable, however, when Maher specifically challenged Palin’s description of the disabled:

Imagine what would have happened if Maher had challenged the President’s “precious and unique” leadership skills. I’m pretty sure the whole panel would have stomped off the set in outrage.

Daily Headline (Special Olympics)(Updated)

March 19, 2009 | 64 Comments


Washington, D.C., March 20, 2009
Special to The Raving Theist

Appearing on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno today, President Barack Obama likened his bowling ability to the comical ineptness of physically and mentally inferior human beings.

The hilarious comparison was inspired by Leno’s sarcastic crack that the Obama’s recent score of 129 at the White House’s private bowling alley was “very good.”

Not to be upstaged, the President retorted “It’s like the Special Olympics or something.”

The uproarious remark recalled the bumbling, uncoordinated antics of disabled individuals with impaired motor skills and mental retardation — whose athletic ability is often so poor that they are forced to compete against each other in segregated, “special” sporting events for the bemusement of higher beings such as this country’s chief executive.

Obama’s humble, self-effacing quip was particularly humorous because everyone know that, as surely as sun glints off his chiseled pectorals, he could bowl a perfect 300 if he were so inclined to exert himself to that end. The joke further cemented Obama’s reputation as world-class intellect, confident in his abilities and possessing the maturity and judgment befitting the world’s most powerful head of state.

But the President’s wit also underscored the serious burdens imposed upon society by lesser people, whose unnecessary lives could be avoided through enlightened abortion policies. After the laughter subsided, Obama reminded the audience that public figures such as Sarah Palin demeaned their office by giving birth to afflicted children who were doomed to be made laughingstocks by future administrations.

UPDATE: Governor Sarah Palin’s address to the 2009 Special Olympics:

Collateral Damage

March 19, 2009 | 6 Comments

The House just passed legislation to recover, through taxation, the contractually-guaranteed bonuses granted to certain AIG executives and explicity approved through prior legislation. In passing this unconstitutional, confiscatory measure, the law-makers made sure to gin up plenty of phony, hypocritical outrage to distract the taxpaying public from noticing that AIG will still keep $169,835,000,000 of $170,000,000,000 of their money, that Rep. Barney Frank and others largely responsible for the economic meltdown will still keep their salaries and perks, and that Chris Dodd and President Obama will still hang on to AIG’s prior contributions to their campaigns.

Obama lapdog Lawrence Tribe of Harvard has predictably issued a fluffy, off-hand opinion that this peculiarly targeted money grab is legal. Time will tell, but commenter Elise over at Brave New Deal has suggested some interesting potential collateral effects of the Professor’s theory:

But based on what Professor Tribe is saying could we also “design a fully constitutional means” of imposing a 100% income tax on, say . . . all income derived from third-trimester abortions? Or on all abortions?

Actually, assuming the provision of Federal funds has something to do with making such a tax constitutional, the one on some or all abortions might be easier depending on the extent to which Federal funding for abortions is in effect.

I’m starting to warm up to this mob rule law-making. In addition to taxing away 99.99% of the income of every abortionist who takes a dime of public money, let’s recoup all salaries paid to Planned Parenthood employees. John Q. Public already gives $336 million per year to this alleged “non-profit,” and we all know that the only reward its dedicated staff really wants is knowing of the freedom it grants to all women.


March 17, 2009 | 18 Comments

Paul Fidalgo of DC Secularism Examiner responds to my defense of Elizabeth Dole’s Godless campaign ads, arguing that their primary intent was to foster anti-atheist “bigotry” rather than advance a “policy critique” of the specific political goals of the Godless Americans PAC. His thesis relies on selected quotes from the ads and other statements from the Dole campaign. The evidence he cites, however, supports rather than refutes my original analysis.

First, Fidalgo relies on the last line of the second ad: “If godless Americans held a party in your honor, would you go?” Fidalgo contends “[t]hat’s not a question based on policy differences . . . [i]t is a question that obviously assumes that atheists should not be mingled with, should not be befriended, and doing so would be unwise and morally questionable.” True — but only if you wilfully ignore both context and capitalization. In fact, the ad is unambiguously refering to (capital G) “Godless Americans” — the party-throwing PAC — not generic (small g) “godless Americans,” e.g. atheists. (Fidalgo’s lowercasing of “godless” must have been intentional, as it was capitalized everytime it appeared in the ad, and his critique would have been over before it began had he presented it properly). Furthermore, the party-attendance question was immediately preceded by a description of Godless Americans’ expressed political goals, leaving no doubt that policy initiatives rather than private associations were being questioned.

Next, Fidalgo relies on the following two paragraphs from a Dole campaign press release:

“Kay Hagan is trying to run a campaign in North Carolina that casts her as a moderate but the money that’s paying for it is coming from the left-wing fringe of political thought,” said Dole Campaign Communications Director Dan McLagan. “You can tell a lot about a person by their friends and these [atheists] are friends most North Carolinians would not be comfortable having over for dinner.” …

“Kay Hagan does not represent the values of this state; she is a Trojan Horse for a long list of wacky left-wing outside groups bent on policies that would horrify most North Carolinians if they knew about it,” McLagan said. “This latest revelation of support from anti-religion activists will not sit well with the 90% of state residents who identify with a specific religious faith.”

Fidalgo’s rendering of the language is again misleading, because he injects, in the brackets, the notion that Dole was refering to “atheist friends”. That word appears nowhere in the release, which clearly targets Hagan’s relationships with wacky left-wing fringe anti-religion activists. Once again, the attack is on political specific groups, which are identified in the first paragraph of the release: the Godless Americans PAC and the Secular Coalition of America. Although Fidalgo opines that “[t]he fact that there was a group to which one of the party’s attendees belonged was really just a little extra dressing,” the association was clearly the whole point of the release.

Finally, Fidalgo asserts that Dole’s own campaign manager, Marty Ryall, “wrote that they expected Hagan to take the first ad as an attack on her faith, not her legislative goals . . . He specifically states that the intention of the ad was to engender that very response, that the association with atheists was sullying to her Christianity.” Again, Fidalgo’s analysis rests on a distortion of what was actually said. Ryall’s exact words on this issue were “[w]e anticipated her response would be that we were attacking her faith; clearly she could not defend attending the event” and “Hagan ran a response ad, as we anticipated, claiming that we were attacking her faith.” Thus all Ryall is “admitting” is that he knew that Hagan would disingenously try to change the topic to her faith rather than address the policy concerns raised by Dole’s ads. Just like Fidalgo and all his sneaky atheist friends.


March 14, 2009 | 19 Comments

UPDATE: Paul Fidalgo responds in the comments (Comment No. 1).

Revisiting Elizabeth Dole’s use of the Godless ad against Kay Hagan in last year’s North Carolina Senatorial contest, Paul Fidalgo of the DC Secularism Examiner bemoans how atheists became “mere chum in the water” for both sides. Dole’s campaign attacked Hagan for attending a fundraiser by The Godless Americans PAC, implying “that mere association with nonbelievers was sufficient to disqualify a person from holding public office.” Hagan responded by reaffirming her (alleged) Christian faith and declaring “I certainly don’t support anything they [the PAC] stand for.” Fidalgo is particularly incensed at Dole campaign manager Marty Ryall’s recently-expressed defense of the tactic. Instead of apologizing for “the demonization of a law-abiding, already-marginalized group of Americans” or “hanging one’s political career on hate toward a minority group,” Ryall expressed regret that the ad backfired. Specifically, he was upset that people thought the Dole campaign was trying to confuse them into thinking that the voice at the end of the ad which declared “There is no God” belonged to Hagan, when in fact it was the PAC’s leader (and former American Atheists President) Ellen Johnson.

Fidalgo’s attempt to play the victim card doesn’t work well in this case. Dole was attacking Hagan’s association not with atheists generally, but with a specific atheist advocacy organization composed of the sort of nonbelievers who have made a career of equating religion with stupidity, delusion, brainwashing and child abuse. Johnson herself had had recently compared religion to cancer and pollution. With this context, Fidalgo’s suggestion that Hagan should have simply replied that “there is nothing wrong with having friends and supporters who do not share her religious beliefs” is disingenuous. Hagan was taking money from people who were openly contemptuous of her (alleged) Christianity, and whose agenda was to demonize and marginalize it.

Daily Headline (With Note at End)

March 12, 2009 | 128 Comments


Washington, D.C., March 12, 2009
Special to The Raving Theist

Declaring “the ultimate triumph of science over politics,” President Obama today announced that only unfertilized, unborn human fetuses would be used in potentially life-saving experimental medical research. The new executive order puts an end to the once-contentious debate over the use of human life in federally-funded efforts to discover new cures for a variety of diseases.

“Ignorance and ideology will no longer impede progress by our greatest scientific minds,” said Obama. “Unfertilized fetuses, at any stage of development, will permit us to move forward with this important research without choosing between sound science and moral values.”

Obama praised Rhodes scholar and “genius” Bill Clinton for his ground-breaking discovery of the unfertilized embryos from which the necessary fetuses would be derived. Clinton announced his startling findings last night in an interview with Dr. Sanjay Gupta on Larry King Live. Not only did Clinton reveal that there are embryos which “clearly have been placed beyond the pale of being fertilized before their use,” but that they would be available to all laboratories because “[t]here are a large number of embryos that we know are never going to be fertilized”:

Dr. Gupta, Obama’s former choice for surgeon general, nodded in awe of Clinton’s extraordinary revelation. In a joint statement, top medical researchers and Planned Parenthood lauded Clinton for “revolutionizing the way we think about embryos.” Although embryos were long believed to be, by definition, the product of fertilization, Clinton’s research demonstrates that the two may be thought of as conceptually distinct. According to Dr. Hans Mengele, this new knowledge will quickly facilitate the harvesting of fully developed organs from unfertilized toddlers and the elderly.

The former President is expected to win a Nobel Prize in Scientific-ness for his contribution to medicine. “This award will send the message that our future is in the capable, competent hands of people who know exactly what they are talking about,” said President Obama. “No longer will such matters be entrusted to those who appear to be hopelessly uninformed, completely clueless and possibly even insane.”

via Kelly Clark of The Lady in the Pew

NOTE: NO, there is no possibility that Clinton actually meant to say “implanted” — which would have made even less sense. See today’s update to Jill Stanek’s post on the interview, and my comment at 12:22pm (3/13/09) of that post regarding Dr. Gupta’s later attempt to spin Clinton’s words.

The Mourning After

March 11, 2009 | 125 Comments

The candles which once burned so brightly have flickered out. The festive fern, once so green, sits brown and dry at the curb. Next to it are bags stuffed with crumpled wrapping paper, paper which graced the sturdy boxes containing our small but meaningful gifts of gratitude. The wicker baskets no longer overflow with fruits and muffins, but are stacked and tucked away in dark cabinets.

The laughter of yesterday is gone. The vast gray sky reminds me that a long, sad year must pass before I feel that joy again.

I collapse into a chair. My face sinks into my hands. I wonder if the fleeting but precious memories of this Tuesday will sustain me for the next 364 days.

And then I cry.

Why can’t every day be National Day of Appreciation for Abortion Providers?

                                                  * * *

For those of you who mourn with me, I offer you this small solace. Last night I had a dream. In it, I raised my eyes and saw the soft, gently smiling face of Cecile Wattleston-Feldt, Deputy Executive Director for Public Relations of the National Abortion Federation. Brushing away my tears, she told me this story:

“One day, not long ago, I appeared in someone’s else’s dream.Walking down a lonely road, I saw a sad little boy carrying an empty basket.  He looked up at me and asked, ‘Ms. Wattleston-Feldt, why can’t every day be National Day of Appreciation for Abortion Providers?’

“I said, ‘little boy, National Day of Appreciation for Abortion Providers is not just a day on the calendar. It is a place in your heart. It is a love that is with you every day. Just like the abortion doctor, who is part of your community. He waves to you every day at the supermaket, smiles at you in the barber shop, plays with you at the block party and visits your family on special occasions. And here he is now!

“The kindly, wise old abortion doctor gave us both a big hug. The little boy beamed. ‘His breath smells just like the wine we had on National Day of Appreciation for Abortion Providers!’ And I said, “It smells like that every day! It smells like that in the morning, and it smells like that at night. It smells like that when he’s home, and it smells like that when he’s at the clinic.”  With that, the kind doctor cupped his hand over one of my breasts, in the reassuring manner he comforts every patient just before she awakes from anesthesia.

“Then the little boy frowned. ‘Ms. Wattleston-Feldt, National Day of Appreciation for Abortion Providers cannot be every day.  Because the doctor cannot be with me every day — this is just a dream! When I wake up, it will all be over.'”

“The abortion doctor patted the little boy on the head. ‘Do not worry, little boy. That will not happen, because you exist only in this dream. It is your mother’s dream, and you will never wake up, because I aborted you five years ago.'”

Happy NDOAFAP or NAPAD or Whatever

March 10, 2009 | 8 Comments

Happy National Day of Appreciation for Abortion Providers! Or, is it “National Abortion Provider Appreciation Day”? Nobody really seems to know. Or care!

I guess I’m not really in a position to change that. And I don’t want to! But I must say, this peculiar “holiday” seems to be “celebrated” more by pro-lifers than pro-choicers. Why do we “appreciate” it? Because it makes our adversaries look exactly like what they are . . . completely demented!!

Speaking of demented, I’m in a doubly “celebratory” mood because today is ALSO the first anniversary of the downfall of Eliot Spitzer — the far-left pro-abortion New York Governor who got the enthuiastic backing of NARAL and Planned Parenthood and was elected in a landslide with the slogan “Day One, Everything Changes” (sound familiar??). I was certainly “hoping he would fail” (sound familiar??). It wasn’t enough for him to spread the killing far and wide — as attorney general he also launched a baseless and unsuccessful assault against crisis pregnancy centers. He was even on his way to the Family Planning Advocates’ Annual Conference when news of his prostitution scandal broke.

As was revealed this week, he acted out his violent rape fantasies on the women by choking them. Naturally, he’s hired a lawyer to call the accuser a liar (“this is outrageous and defamatory!” the guy said). Sounds pretty “pro-choice, pro-rape” to me! But it’s now time for a moment of silence — complete and total silence, believe me — from all the pro-choice blogs who ever (and I mean NEVER) called Spitzer a misogynist.

Anyway, I’m thrilled that NDOAFAP or NAPAD or whatever will never again pass without some reminiscing about of one of Big Abortion’s biggest friends. To further help you “enjoy” this day, here’s a round-up of some NDOAFAP/NAPAD/whatever links:

Christina Dunigan of RealChoice.

Christina has renamed it “Abortionist” Appreciation Day even though Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg specifically disapproves of that term. Christina specifically disapproves of abortionists, and names names.

Katha Pollitt at the Nation.

This blood-thirsty abortion demon used to volunteer for the Haven Coalition, which helped women get late-term abortions in New York after the deadline in every other state had passed. The big moral dilemma for her was whether to offer her pre-abortive houseguests People Magazine or The Nicomachean Ethics. In the linked Nation piece, she attacks ultrasound legislation and quotes some abortion advocate as worrying whether the current generation of medical students has enough “fire in the belly” to continue staffing the industry’s needs. Or maybe that just a recommendation for a new abortion technique.

Diana J. at Birth at Home in Arizona.

This National Birth blogger reveals that she is pro-life and that she does NOT appreciate abortion providers!!! Spoil sport. Inviting this gal to your NDOAFAP party would be like having an atheist over for Christmas!

Some Anonymous Moron at Choice Words.

This blog is run by Choice USA, a group founded by Gloria Steinem. “We often think of the abstract concepts of informed choice, agency, and equality [ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ — Ed.] when discussing abortion rights, but the people on the front-lines – the abortion providers – often don’t get the accolades they should.” Don’t bother clicking on the link, that’s pretty much all they say. The next paragraph links to a five-year-old list of suggestions for commemorating the day — a list I’ve seen a whole bunch of pro-choice blogs linking to. How lazy! Plus, most of the suggestions are USELESS by the time you read them. “Organize local appreciation day events,” “organize with others to hold a March 10th dinner with area providers,” “take out ads in your newsletters and local newspapers.” Idiots.

Dr. Suzanne Poppema at RH Reality Check.

Did I already call someone a blood-thirsty abortion demon? Dr. Poppema is one too. “We’re still waiting for Hallmark to make us a special line of greeting cards,” she jokes.

Jivin J at JivinJehoshaphat.

Jivin J helpfully suggests the message for Dr. Poppema’s Hallmark card.

Donna at Random Thoughts of a Fiery Woman.

This post actually re-prints in full the useless list of five-year old suggestions to celebrate NDOAFAP, rather than merely linking to it. I was about to engage in ridicule until I read the next paragraph: “Maybe we should institute a day of appreciation for mass murderers. I’m sure Ted Bundy would’ve appreciated a basket of muffins. Too bad we killed him for being a MURDERER.” This dear pro-life woman’s lawyer recommended she have an abortion so as not to compromise her pending worker’s comp case. (She didn’t). Read the whole thing!

Grayson Dempsey at Backline.

Sure to become an instant classic among lazy pro-choice NDOAFAP bloggers, a list of “10 Reasons We Love Our Local Abortion Providers.” And among pro-life bloggers, who can convert it into a eminently sensible post by simply changing the word “love” to “hate.”

And finally, something to celebrate which is the opposite of abortion. Surely you will enjoy it. (via Jill Stanek via Bethany Kerr).

Daily Headline

March 9, 2009 | 10 Comments

Washington, DC, March 9, 2009
Special to The Raving Theist

Claiming to oppose the imposition of what it considers a “toxic morality” upon all Americans, a non-religious group is calling for the removal of the “G__ Word” from the country’s currency.

“As hard-working, tax-paying citizens, we are deeply offended to be confronted, every time we open our wallets, by the ultimate symbol of hypocrisy, deception and moral degeneracy,” said the group’s founder, Michael Williams.” “While we recognize that an overwhelming majority of Americans profess a certainty that He exists, their views should not alone prevail in this diverse and multicultural nation.”

Williams added that “if you want to know what ‘We Trust’ in, it is our own ability to comply with man’s duly-enacted laws.” Williams cautioned that the continued use of the “G__ Word” would simply encourage others to hold themselves above the law — noting that the group’s target has demonstrated a “complete disregard of the very code He purports to enforce.”

Treasury Secretary Geithner had no comment on the organization’s campaign to obliterate his name from dollar bills by covering it with a bright red “tax cheat” stamp. The Obama administration, however, has responded by directing an IRS audit of the protesting group.

A Botched Argument

March 6, 2009 | 95 Comments

Writing about the recent Florida botched abortion case, Gary Stein of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel tearfully pleads for common ground:

Don’t turn this incident into a referendum on abortion

Those of us who are strongly pro-choice are every bit as upset as the anti-abortion crowd after what happened at the Hialeah clinic.

I agree with Antonio Fins, that the pro-choice leaders should be out vocally decrying all of this — that Belkis Gonzalez, who is already serving probation for unlawfully operating a Miramar abortion clinic, faces new charges over a botched abortion at her Hialeah Clinic.

But don’t paint the pro-choice people with the same broad brush. And don’t turn this incident into a referendum on abortion itself.

Most pro-choice people would want this clinic closed, would want any clinic where Gonzalez was involved to be closed, and for Gonzalez to face the full measure of the law. Just because we believe in a woman’s right to choose doesn’t mean we believe that botched abortions and unlawful clinics and babies being thrown out in plastic bags are OK. Please.

What people need to realize is that this case is the exception, not the rule. Because abortion is legal, women can get the procedure done in a safe way. You start taking away abortion rights, and that’s when you’ll see a lot more cases like this, with women going wherever they can to get an abortion. This case was indeed hideous, but it’s an aberration, not the norm.

Gary, I would love to find common ground with you if you weren’t both extremely stupid and sick in the head. The key to your degeneracy is found in your assertion that “[j]ust because we believe in a woman’s right to choose doesn’t mean we believe that botched abortions and unlawful clinics and babies being thrown out in plastic bags are OK.” Let me break it down for you.

I agree that your pro-choicetude doesn’t mean you believe in botched abortions. Of course you want them to be unbotched and successful. In this particular case, that would mean that the unborn child would be chopped up in utero rather than suffocated in a bag. To me it’s the difference between a beheading and the gas chamber. Your belief in the right to choose simply means you prefer the former over the latter.

I agree that your pro-choicetude doesn’t mean you believe in unlawful clinics. You want what goes on in abortion clinics to be lawful. That’s what being pro-choice generally means.

I agree that your pro-choicetude doesn’t mean that babies being thrown away in plastic bags are OK. You’ve expressed your preference for the chop-job. But the most likely reason for your preference is merely that the suffocation route is illegal, because the Supreme Court’s last abortion decision rejected pro-choice arguments that out-of-womb killings should be allowed. If the court had ruled otherwise, you’d favor both techniques. And you wouldn’t be calling what happened in Florida “botched” or “illegal” because you’d no longer be calling what was stuffed in the bag a “baby.”

Horrified, Horrified, Horrifed

March 5, 2009 | 99 Comments

Abortion clinic owner Belkis Gonzlalez was arrested yesterday for throwing away a newborn. The mother had given birth at 23 weeks because the abortionist,  Pierre Jean-Jacque Renelique, arrived too late to earn his full fee. Belkis won’t be charged with murder — just the unlicensed practice of medicine and evidence tampering – because prosecutors can’t prove that the baby would have survived.

Pro-choice blog Jezebel shed some crocodile tears over this incident last month. “[T]here aren’t really words to describe how we feel about this story,” said Jez, inconsolable that the baby had been suffocated in a medical waste bag rather than chopped up in the womb two minutes before being stuffed into a medical waste bag. “I doubt that there are any pro-choice women who aren’t horrified by the actions of the doctor and the clinic owner.” Horrified, again, that the baby was suffocated in a medical waste bag rather than chopped up in the womb two minutes before being stuffed into a medical waste bag.  After an obligatory (and somewhat irrelevant) defense of Obama’s abortion record, Jezebel identifies what she really finds so tragic about this case:

Gonzalez’s actions are exactly the sort of thing the anti-abortion movement accuses clinic workers of all the time — operating “abortion mills” without regards for the women they care for or the “pre-born children” they are supposedly destroying.

If Williams’ [the mother] cooperation with the anti-abortion movement is any indication, Renelique and Gonzalez have created yet another woman like Norma McCorvey who, although once pro-choice, is now a staunch and somewhat effective anti-abortion advocate. Unlike McCorvey, however, Williams will come complete with a story of how she watched her living infant slaughtered in front of her by an “abortionist” with no regard for her or her child. And although the pro-choice movement is going to have to take this one lying down, we’re all horrified on her behalf.

Horrifying – another anti-abortion advocate needlessly created by letting her actually see what abortion is all about. If only the abortionist had just shown his “regard” for the child by chopping it up in the womb before bagging it, the mother might have been a dues-paying member of NARAL. The commenters dutifully echo this  theme:

That is so sad.
I am pro-choice, but I could understand how seeing a baby thrown into a plastic bag might scar someone for life.
This is just another example of how one bad egg can ruin it and make people think all abortions are horrific.

                                                                  *   *   *

a)  This is horrific. Anyone, pro-choice or not, can see how terrible and traumatic this is.
b)  I’m afraid this will be picked up as ammo by anti-choicers. In fact, I’m sure of it.

                                                                  *   *   *

Way to give doctors who aren’t disgusting examples of humanity a bad name and give the rabid pro-lifers a bone to chew on.

                                                                   *   *   *
Oh, Christ. This is a HORRIBLE story and something that the crazy conservatives will throw in our pro-choice faces.

God damn it. I am gonna flay this doctor alive. Does he have any idea what he’s done? Not only has he shown blatant disregard for human life and ignored his obligations as a health care provider, he has damaged the collective reputation of professionals in his field and the movement for women’s reproductive rights.


First prize, however, must go to commenter PilgrimSoul, who argues that . . . that . . . that . . . well, just read it:

By the by, folks, incompetent doctors like this going into abortions is precisely what happens when abortion is publicly described as a “shameful” practice (so no young bougie [sic] people want to touch it with a ten foot pole) and when it is, moreover, actually dangerous to be a doctor who engages in the practice. So f**k you, pro-lifers, for making hay out of this, because in a society that didn’t shame women about this, that didn’t make it a rationally indefensible choice for a bright young doctor to go into this, this would NEVER happen. The dudes with the coat hangers and the doctors who don’t know what they’re doing is what we have left.

What is Atheism?

March 4, 2009 | 95 Comments

“What is atheism?” say the folks over at American Atheists, “is usually the one question never asked of most atheists.” Small wonder, I’d say, given the conflicting answers given by AA in addressing that very issue. First, on their About Athesim page, they chide believers for asserting that atheism is a “doctrine” or a “belief system”:

What is Atheism?

Theists usually define atheism incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a belief system. Atheism is not a religion.

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, from the original Greek meaning of “without gods.” That is it. There is nothing more to it. If someone wrote a book titled “Atheism Defined,” it would only be one sentence long.

                                               * * *

Older dictionaries define atheism as “a belief that there is no God” and/or “denial of God” . . . . Some dictionaries even say that atheism is the “doctrine that there is no God.” At least The American Heritage ® Dictionary says “God and gods” after the word “doctrine,” but that does not detract from the fact that use of the word doctrine is incorrect.

                                                 * * *

[U]sing words like “doctrine” and “denial” betray the negativity seen of atheists by theistic writers. Atheism does not have a doctrine at all and atheists certainly do not “deny” that gods exist. Denial is the “refusal to believe.” Atheism does not “know there is a god but refuse to believe in him” (or her). That would be like saying that you know Big Foot exists but you refuse to believe in him. If the evidence of gods was insurmountable and provable, and atheists still refused to believe, then that would be an act of denial.

On the other hand, on another page they declare that atheism is both a doctrine and belief with very specific scientific and moral implications:

What is Atheism

Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own.

The following definition of Atheism was given to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d (MD, 1963), to remove reverential Bible reading and oral unison recitation of the Lord’s Prayer in the public schools.

“Your petitioners are Atheists and they define their beliefs as follows. An Atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An Atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth for all men together to enjoy.

“Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds,” said Emerson. I don’t know what AA’s official stance is on the existence of hobgoblins, but in this case I think a little consistency might not be so foolish.

Of Conservatives and Kumquats

March 3, 2009 | 32 Comments

Is the consumption of kumquats politically driven? There’s really no way of knowing whether it’s a “red” or “blue” thing. Statistically speaking, the variation in consumption from state to state is insignficant: just 0.2% of households ate them in the lowest-consuming state and just 0.5% did in the highest consuming state. So even though it turns out that many of the biggest kumquat-eating states are technically “red” — Utah being No.1 — consumption in those states isn’t much different than in the “blue” ones.

More importantly, there are no statistics on the political leanings of the particular individuals who actually eat kumquats within each state. Thus, while Utah is 63% “red,” the 0.5% of households that ate kumquats in that state could be completely contained within the 37% “blue” population. So no scientifically-minded person would conclude from this data that “conservatives and are the biggest consumers of kumquats.”

In fact, the data cited above relates to online pornography rather than kumquats. Yet based upon it, ABC News in promoting story entitled Porn in the USA: Conservatives are biggest consumers. Its source is a study by Benjamin Edelman of the Harvard Business School, who pompously concludes that “Some of the people who are most outraged turn out to be consumers of the very things they claimed to be outraged by.”

Get Religion and Newsbusters have good take-downs of this Harvard/ABC nonsense. However, if you prefer an uncritical regurgitation of the story, go to the American Atheists blog, Professor PZ Myers of Pharyngula, Think Atheist, God is for Suckers, Luke the Atheist or skeptic Ed Brayton.

  • Basic Assumptions

    First, there is a God.

    Continue Reading...

  • Search

  • Quote of the Day

    • Fifty Random Links

      See them all on the links page.

      • No Blogroll Links