Voting for Hilary Clinton? Red Lines versus Lesser of Evils

14 Jul



Assuming that the current prospects for presidential candidates hold firm, and Hilary Clinton is nominated by the Democrats and Jeb Bush, Rick Rubio, or Scott Walker win the Republican nomination, what should a conscientious citizen do when it comes to voting in November 2016? Of course, step one is to rule out support for the Republican candidates due to their regressive views on a range of social and economic issues, and their militarist bluster on foreign and defense policy. Step two is more difficult. Clinton is clearly preferable if the domestic agenda is taken into account, and probably no worse than the Republicans when it comes to foreign policy, but also not noticeably better, and in some ways more objectionable.


For instance, she begins her recent letter to the billionaire arch Zionist mega-donor and longtime Clinton family supporter, Haim Saban, on July 7, 2015 this way: “I am writing to express my alarm over the boycott, divestment, and sanction movement, ‘BDS,’ a global effort to isolate the State of Israel by ending commercial and academic exchanges.” She seeks Saban’s guidance in pursuit of this nefarious goal with this deferential language: “Now I am seeking your thoughts and recommendations on how leaders and communities across America can work together to counter BDS.”


I am sure it didn’t escape the gurus of the Clinton campaign that Saban had joined with the casino mogul, Sheldon Adelson not long ago to headline a donors gathering at which each participant was expected to pledge $1 million to fight BDS. Although Adelson identifies as Republican and Saban as Democrat, both fervently embrace the Netanyahu brand of Israeli leadership. Saban has been quoted on Iran in language that manages to outdo Bibi, “I would bomb the daylight out of those sons of bitches.”


Clinton has a variety of other scary credentials, including voting in support of the Iraq War of 2003, and to this day remains unwilling to admit that the war was at the very least a tragic mistake, and more accurately, a costly international crime. She not only argued for intervention in Libya in 2011, but made a chilling comment on CBS News after learning of the grisly vigilante execution of Muammar Qaddafi: “We came, we saw, he died.” Further, among the emails that Clinton has long withheld from the public are several that substantiate the charges that France from the outset both intended to overthrow the Qaddafi regime, and expected to reap economic benefits by way of the spoils of war, especially with respect to Libya’s oil wealth. It is not that Clinton actually conspired with such plans while serving as Secretary of State, but she did knowingly lead the effort to support the French-led NATO intervention in 2011, claiming that its limited goal was the protection of Libyan civilians in Benghazi, when she was well aware that the real purpose of the UN-mandated intervention was regime-change in Tripoli.


Here is my dilemma. In view of such considerations, does one vote for Hilary Clinton with eyes wide open because she is likely to be better for ordinary Americans on a range of crucial issues, including some effort to challenge the obscene scandal of growing inequalities and sustained slippage in the real income and labor rights of workers and the accumulated hardships on much of the middle class? Or does one say there are certain candidates whose views are so abhorrent as to be unsupportable without weighing their suitability against alternatives? Many remember the acrimonious debates along the same lines concerning the 2000 campaign pitting Bush against Gore, and allegedly lost by Gore in Florida because Ralph Nader, running as a third party candidate, received over 90,000 votes, arguably more than enough to swing the state to Gore’s side of the ledger, and thus enough electoral votes to win the presidency. Most Democrats angrily dismissed Nader as a spoiler and harshly criticized supporters for indulging in irresponsible political behavior. As someone who voted for Nader in 2000, while coming to detest the Bush presidency, I continue to believe that primary duty of citizens in a democratic society is to be on most occasions responsive to their conscience rather than to attempt pragmatic calculations often glamorized as ‘the best being the enemy of the good.’ In the case more accurately phrases as ‘the worst being the enemy of the bad.’ I do admit that I didn’t realize in 2000 that Bush would turn out as badly as he did, and if I had, I might have wavered.


Looking ahead to 2016 the issue of choice can be at this stage put as follows: vote for Hilary Clinton as ‘the lesser of evils’ or vote for Jill Stein of the Green Party as the most attractive presidential candidate, but someone with no chance to do more than enliven the debate and give alienated voters like myself a positive option that feels better than not voting. Remember that there were those establishment liberals who in the tense days after the 9/11 attacks were ready to rationalize torture as the lesser of evils. It was alleged lesser as compared to the need for information that would lead to dangerous terrorist suspects, but where it actually led was to Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, and a nationally humiliating orgy of torture with very little security payoff. The Kathryn Bigelow film on the search for and execution of Osama Bin Laden, “Zero Dark Thirty,” also gave a bright green light to the torture policies of the Bush presidency, fed to the public by the grotesque evasion embedded in the words ‘enhanced interrogation.’


The alternative logic may be described as respect for ‘red lines.’ I happen to believe that the BDS campaign is a desirable and an essential step in the redesign of a peace process that might produce a just and sustainable peace for Palestinians and Israelis

after more than 67 years of agonizing failure, including the recent frustrations associated with the Oslo diplomacy initiated by the handshake in 1993 between Yitzhak Rabin and Yasir Arafat, with a beaming Bill Clinton standing in between. For me, Hilary Clinton crossed my red line with her craven letter to Haim Saban, making it impossible for me to vote for her by invoking the alternative logic of the lesser of evil. But maybe, although unlikely, by the time November 2016 comes around, I might reconsider.


I realize that if one of those awful Republicans is elected president by a close vote that is skewed by Green Party votes, I will be bitterly criticized by liberal friends. I admit that it is a tricky issue on principled grounds. Livelihoods and wellbeing will almost certainly be adversely affected by a Republican victory, whereas the differences in foreign policy between the two candidates are murky at best, and on Israel/Palestine there is no up side regardless of which party prevails. At the same time, the American plutocracy has become a bipartisan enterprise, calling for resistance as an ethical and political imperative, acknowledging the validity of Chris Hedges’ powerfully reasoned insistence that the country is experiencing pre-revolutionary tremors.


At this stage of the electoral process, my overall sense is that the lesser of evils is still evil, and that morally significant red lines are important for citizens to draw and respect. Until further notice, then, I have decided not to cast my vote for Hilary Clinton.  

38 Responses to “Voting for Hilary Clinton? Red Lines versus Lesser of Evils”

  1. Caruthers Sebastian July 14, 2015 at 2:37 am #

    As long as people of conscience hold their noses and vote corporate, war-mongering Democrats like Clinton as the lesser evil of the two realistically possible alternatives, the further the Democratic Party will lurch to the right; for as long as Democratics are slightly to the left of Republicans, the former will ignore the concerns of progressive voters on the grounds that those voters have no alternative, and will instead pursue more big corporate money by adopting big corporate-friendly policies.

  2. Terry B. July 14, 2015 at 2:46 am #

    Thank you, Richard Falk, for distilling the essential issues when it comes to our next presidential election. And for me, the last one also. Obama had crossed a red line of mine with his kill list and executions by drone. A third party candidate with no chance of winning was the only – and unsatisfactory – choice that remained, other than not voting. Clinton would also be an unacceptable option, given her current attitude regarding Israel and Palestine and the effective, moral, and nonviolent actions for justice found in BDS actions.

  3. Gene Schulman July 14, 2015 at 3:08 am #


    Glad to see you have chosen not to vote for Hillary. As far as I am concerned, there is no choice at all. Don’t vote! 2000 has already shown that votes not only don’t count, but they are not even counted. So why bother? If enough people don’t vote, the case for revolt just might be heard. I’m definitely with Hedges on this.

  4. Pam July 14, 2015 at 3:33 am #

    Hello Richard!

    Clinton crossed the red line for me when I heard her on the radio crowing over the need for the assault during the 2006 war.

    What about Bernie?

    I hope you’re well! —Pam

    • Richard Falk July 14, 2015 at 3:50 am #

      Hi Pam:

      Hope you are fine! And hope you have not abandoned fiction..

      Bernie is a possibility if he stays the course, and I should have mentioned this; he is mainstream Congress on Israel/Palestine. I once
      had a good conversation with him in the Burlington Airport about Vietnam decades before you were born!

      warm greetings, richard

      • katasayang July 14, 2015 at 7:21 am #

        Bernie! Bernie!

      • Richard Falk July 14, 2015 at 7:37 am #

        Yes, I agree. My focus was on what seemed like at this time the assured outcome of the campaign
        by the two parties. It may have been a mistake, from this perspective, that Bernie Sanders is seeking
        the Democratic Party nomination rather than running as an independent. In any event, his main message is
        worth heeding.

  5. Ann Nevans July 14, 2015 at 6:22 am #

    I do not agree that Clinton is suspect only on foreign policy. On the domestic side of things she is staunchly in the pocket of the corporocracy. She is heavily funded by big business. She even defends Monsanto and GMO food, saying there is no proof that it is harmful and has been quiet when called upon to be clear about her position on this very important issue.

    The Clinton Foundation has very unsavoury links. Basically the Clintons would take money from anybody.

    Yes, we faced this dilema before. I voted for Nader and helped usher Bush into the White house, but I cannot/will not vote for Clinton. The republicans are bad but they are exactly what they are – the forces of regression, ignorant, greedy, nationalistic, unevolved etc but Clinton is portraying herself as being for the people when she is completely in the pocket of big money – and dark money.

    Is it worse to be the enemy than to be sleeping with the enemy ?

    No way I could vote for her.

  6. Harvey Epstein July 14, 2015 at 6:33 am #

    You appear to be a one issue voter, little different than a Tea Party voter.

    No one will be a perfect candidate for you (unless it is you). When you look at them all, for the good of America (and that is what a president is supposed to be), from my view Bernie is the standout (and he just seemed to have slipped your mind in you article).

    I understand that foreign policy and international rules are very important issues for our country, but you can’t, or shouldn’t be driven by just one aspect of any candidate (even though that issue is a core issue for you). If you look at the rest of the agenda of a candidate on foreign policy and other issues and detect nothing really major to object to, but find that the rest of the candidates fall shorter, then you have clear choices: vote for the candidate who favors your one foreign policy issue but is not as good on what is best for America on all of the other issues (like perpetuating income inequality, infrastructure rebuilding, education, etc.); vote for Hilary; vote for a spoiler (and possibly end up with another Bush II or worse) or do not vote at all. Given the current “probabilities”, any vote not in favor of Hilary is just going to be counter-productive (as I understand your article – ignoring the BDS issue).

    If you really like Bernie, then campaign for him. Should he not be nominated by the Democrats, then support the person who is so nominated (unless you feel that a third party candidate really has a chance).

  7. rehmat1 July 14, 2015 at 7:06 am #

    YES. Some people even say: “Voting Hillary Clinton is voting for Israel.”

    Last year, the ‘American Jewish Congress (AJC),’ an Israel lobby group, honored Hillary Clinton, former US First Lady of Monica Lewinsky Affair with AJCongress’ Stephen S. Wise Award for her services to Israel and Jewish community.

    The award was presented by Hollywood Jewish actress Julianna Margulies and serenaded at the dinner table by Israeli singer Liel Kolet.

    During her 30-minute speech, Hillary talked mostly about the Islamic Republic and John Kerry’s Palestinian peace charade.

    Hillary also lauded her part as secretary of state in building international support for Iran sanctions and in bringing Israeli and Palestinian leaders together.

    Hillary also praised Benjamin Netanyahu as “man of peace” and the Zionist entity as “model for democracy” to follow. I’m sure Israeli professor Nev Gordon would not agree with Hillary. He called Netanyahu spook, terrorist or criminal. America’s famous Zionist author and women rights activist, Marianne Williamson says that Israel is NOT a democracy.

  8. Gene Schulman July 14, 2015 at 8:09 am #

    Richard, is there any way you can give your blog server a poke. I am not receiving any of these comments in my in-box. Thx.


    • Richard Falk July 14, 2015 at 2:05 pm #

      Gene: I am trying to figure out what causes this kind of difficulties. It is apparently relatively common. Here is the bewildering
      response I received when I inquired as to what I might do: in response to the topic “How to ensure access to comment section by blog readers?”:

      If we aren’t aware of their operating systems and browser version and all browser addons and extensions like adlockers that they are using then all we can do is waste time speculating.
      If these people have wordpress.COM username have them log in and post into this thread to supply that information I referred to. Then type modlook into the sidebar tags on this thread for Staff help. How do I get a Moderator/Staff reply for my question? Then please subscribe to it so you are notified when they respond. To subscribe look in the sidebar of this thread, find the subscribe to topics link and click it.”

  9. Jack Ucciferri July 14, 2015 at 8:18 am #

    Thank you for this thought piece and nod to a Hedges article that I will now seek out.

    As someone who stands firmly by my vote for Nader in 2000, I would like to remind us all that Presidential elections are but the final act in a drawn out process that has many points of entry and leverage for engaged citizens. Whom one ultimately votes for is much less important in American democracy than how one uses his/her influence to sway the process leading up to the vote.

    3rd parties and their candidates can be credited with catalyzing most or all of the more progressive victories in US history and therefore supporting them is the ONLY rational strategy for progressives from a historical perspective.

    That said – and your comment about his apparent politics on the Middle East notwithstanding – Sanders’ sincere, incisive, inspiringly, and well-developed analysis of our current political moment must garner one’s consideration. I, for one, will be campaigning for him, despite my Green Party affiliation.

    • Richard Falk July 15, 2015 at 4:24 am #

      I agree, Jack, and tried to compensate with my sequel post supporting the Sanders’ campaign.

  10. Jerry "Peacemaker" July 14, 2015 at 9:28 am #

    In the spirit of total government transparency, a few weeks ago proposed the creation of a government-run website with the name “” or similar. The idea behind such a proposed internet creation was first and foremost separating truth from fiction – fact from fallacy – leading to the highest level of citizen awareness, in America and globally, ever. Any man or woman in America who had achieved a Ph.D. could apply for a 60-minute slot to say whatever they felt was important, either original thought or upon becoming convinced by men or women who had not yet achieved a Ph.D..

  11. Jerry "Peacemaker" July 14, 2015 at 10:05 am #

    (Submitted comment before finished…) If the Ph.D/60-minute format ever came about, in one year the website would hold 8,736 posts numbered 1 thru 8,736; if, instead, 30-minute presentations became the agreed-upon time limit, the first year total would come to 17,472, numbered 1 through 17,472. Presentations by men and women who’d achieved Ph.D. status would become widely debated, concepts would be rejected, improved upon or seen as complete without possible improvement. Reference to particular presentations – “Did you see/listen to Professor Smith on #3,778? Wow!” or “If Ms. Jones had included this aspect of the problem on #1,043, it would be much more beneficial…” etc.. Such a website would quickly become to most popular on Earth.

    With respect to the 2016 presidential campaign, how about a “100 Questions for Candidates Project”? Such a campaign, if and when it went “viral”, would result in a situation where the most important questions of our time became screened and compiled, therefore making it impossible for any/every candidate to ignore or avoid answering them. Examples of possible questions are “Can you describe your feelings, in light of the chaos in Libya, upon hearing of the death of Muammar Gaddafi?”, “What will it take to bring peace to the Middle East?”, “Should all nations eliminate nuclear weapons?”, “What about making membership in the United Nations dependent upon membership in the International Criminal Court?”, “How do you feel about 85 individuals possessing as much wealth as 3.5 billion?” and so on, etc.. hasn’t gotten any traction as yet. Perhaps The 100 Questions Project will fare better.

    • Richard Falk July 15, 2015 at 4:22 am #

      It is worth a try! And the mere process of developing the question would be a step toward the formulation
      of a progressive political platform.

  12. peteybee July 14, 2015 at 10:12 am #

    I don’t see how I could ever vote for Hillary with a clean conscience.

    To Democrats who cry about the possibility of losing whenever a better candidate undercuts them from the left, I say, grow a spine and stop being such sell-outs.

    Incidentally, if the US had Instant Runoff Voting, as most civilized first world countries do (see here: ), then that would not be a problem and we could all vote our conscience.

  13. ray032 July 14, 2015 at 1:34 pm #

    As a Canadian, I can’t vote in your election, but I think Bernie Sanders with Robert Reich as his running mate could win!

  14. ray032 July 14, 2015 at 1:36 pm #

    ‘Study: Congress literally doesn’t care what you think’

  15. Claudia Damon July 14, 2015 at 4:00 pm #

    What about Bernie?

    • Richard Falk July 15, 2015 at 4:21 am #

      My oversight!! I tried to overcome with a second short post of support for Bernie, with whom I once had a long conversation
      with in the Burlington Airport just after he was elected to Congress.

      Hope you are fine!!

  16. Kata Fisher July 14, 2015 at 9:09 pm #

    A note:

    Republican politics can be difficult – impossible to manage on daily bread issues due to vast fortunate choices. Still, Republicans are (more then able to govern )- even take a real good look how they are going to manage a successful election.

    I really believe that Republican politics can become more human- and recognise that conception and pregnancy are natural processes to the human species (woman species) that have to be allowed to the end-term (as biological processes to a human species / woman ) just as life of a human is a biological process, and should be allowed to be completed as a biological process (unless there is serious crime to that biological process – by the personal choice of a victims conscience to cut off its and/or a human species personal biological process – another process imposed and/or was imposed).

    Women species have evolved more and more in last few (a little more then 40 years) and for example now even can understand that abortions are totally not central to women rights issues – not even a part to the concept of woman rights.

    Starting about 40 years ago women were less evolved – and because women species are – are also much more evolved now. (I would think because I would not know what else I can could reason on that).

    Species that are species that have have not satisfactorily evolved are not able to understand their personal biological process..

    I know this is almost a childish thing to think on it – but I just do not know how to think on this in any other way on cell splitting / multiplying process ( it’s like a BIG-BANG). I think – just an extreme creative biological process. To the beginning there was just nothing!

  17. anniepani July 15, 2015 at 10:15 am #

    Your description of HRC really chimes with my reading of her. I’m a UK citizen, so it’s not for me to tell Americans how to vote, but if elected I think she will be a five star war monger. Start buying shares in defence companies!

  18. anniepani July 15, 2015 at 10:17 am #

    Another aspect of this, with our experience of Margaret Thatcher, there is a certain type of woman in politics, I think Madeline Albright was one, who seem to think they have to be more macho than the men to be taken seriously. Thus most the benefits you might hope for in a naïve way, in voting for a woman fail to materialise.

  19. Angela Ablett July 19, 2015 at 2:19 pm #

    How can I share these posts?

    • Richard Falk July 19, 2015 at 10:12 pm #

      Angela: It is fine to share as you wish with friends or re-post on another website. I have
      no proprietary interests in the process. I am trying, although without consistent success, to avoid personally
      insulting comments, and to limit access for posts that have no relevance such as most of those
      submitted by Kata Fisher.

  20. Marshalldoc July 21, 2015 at 11:11 am #

    The unspoken, but nevertheless true, rejoinder to the ‘Nader stole Gore’s election’ canard is that, in truth, Gore’s candidacy & policy choices failed to win the votes Nader won. Had Gore’s policies been more authentically liberal, less neoliberal, more progressive, he’d have overwhelmed the ‘Nader effect’ and won the election. He, like the other corporate Dims, chose, to one degree or another, to pander to the right & middle-right (which he hadn’t a chance in hell of winning away from Bush), rather than to the left & far left. I voted Nader in ’08, Anderson in ’12 and regret only that enough others didn’t join me to prevent the disasters we currently live with. Similarly with Jill Stein, I’ll happily vote my conscience rather than have to be directly responsible tor the unspeakable policies we know HRC will continue; never mind those new policies she will likely initiate.

  21. Walker Percy July 23, 2015 at 6:59 pm #

    Richard: why do you omit Rand Paul from your list of possible Republican nominees? Like last time, the Republican primary voters will obediently line up for one far-fetched “front runner” after another. Now, it is Trump, but that will probably last as long as Newt Gingrich in 2012. Rand and Ron Paul are timing their campaign based on irrevocable laws of the media, so that they will be the last man standing. Have you noticed that Rand has been not made any news lately? They are creating a vacuum so that that the field will thin by attrition, as one buffoon after another is impaled on the pike of public ridicule.

    Come to think of it, why aren’t you supporting Rand Paul? He is the only candidate that is un-beholden to Israel*, and is therefore well-suited to take on the lobby after “67 years of agonizing failure”. He has said he will defund Israel (as well as all foreign aid). That is the key to the problem: those guys over there are getting delivered truckloads of greenbacks every month, and they are using it for whatever the they want to, including all those apartment buildings they are setting up specifically to say Fuck You to America and the world. As soon as Rand is elected, he can turn off the money spigot, and the miscreants will shut down their non-stop bar mitzvah, dust off their passports and quietly return home to America, Russia, Poland, etc., just like the great sage Helen Thomas said should happen. Then the tipping point will occur, and Israel will implode, (hopefully without a nuclear bang), and we just have to figure out how to clean up the wrecked countries of Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt, Gaza, Lebanon, etc., and somehow try to help all of the millions of refugees. Probably not in our lifetimes, but it would be sweet to see the pieces begin to fall into place.

    I keep thinking about the quote from Tolstoy in your recent Japanese interview:

    “Though the surface of the sea of history seemed motionless, the movement of humanity went on as unceasingly as the flow of time. … . The sea of history was not driven spasmodically from shore to shore as previously. It was seething in its depths.”

    We may see such a surge from the depths, as people come to their senses about the nightmare of endless horrors we have paid for and are ruthlessly enforcing in the middle east. But all that may be required is a single executive order from the American president. Obama wouldn’t do it, in spite of our faith in him. Folks in Israel should be welcomed back home, where they will finally be safe. But they cannot remain in that place, because they don’t know how to behave themselves. The rest of us must see to it.


    *AIPAC donations to congress (, Rand Paul was the lowest recipient by far of all senators (5K to Rand, 684K to Mark Kirk).

    • Kata Fisher July 25, 2015 at 3:06 pm #


      “67 years of agonizing failure” is just terrible.

      Recently I read some history from 2 Maccabees (part of Apocrypha Books) – then starting at Chapter 4 I was amazed to come across martyrology.

      I never paid attention to Hellenistic Judaism before – but revisiting 2 Maccabees I understood how much there was martyrdom
      prior to that birth of Jesus Christ.

      When Nehemiah listed the folks (heads of the Families) who actually were rebuilding the wall – he intended to exclude all families heads that did not rebuild the wall.

      If you ever get to read any of those Books, I hope you can reflect on those facts.


      Apocrypha Books are traditionally located in Old Testament – they were used prior to Jesus Christ and actually were quoted by Jesus Christ. They are legitimate class of literature to read, quote.

      The Apocrypha Books never were challenged until the rise of Protestant Rebellion – and were actually removed from Old Testament (as was traditional order ofJews). Likewise, serval New Testament Books (including Gospel) were removed from New Testament Canon by Martin Luther – but shortly after that the Protestants have put New Testament Canon back together.

      The fact is that there was manipulation and removal of the Books of the Old and New Testament.

      However, Jewish History in Apocrypha Books is removed from Protestant Canon (according to traditional teaching of Roman-Catholic Church Order).

      This is current happening among population that is in satanic seals and or Blasphemy of God’s Spirit (irrevocable generational/personal sins) under specific conditions: violation of Church Charismatic Order and Teaching of the Church Office.

    • Richard Falk July 26, 2015 at 11:56 pm #

      I understand your passion for Rand Paul, but such an outlook overlooks his regressive views
      on race, gender choices, and women’s reproductive rights. At present, Paul is leading an effort
      to defund Planned Parenthood. As much as I value a political figure who favors a shift in the way
      America behaves in the Middle East, I do not feel that Paul is remotely qualified for the job, or
      for that matter are most of the candidates on either side. While I support Sanders as against Clinton,
      I would not do so in a national election, given his record on ME issues.

      Hope you are fine. With greetings.

      • ray032 July 27, 2015 at 3:39 am #

        Greetings, Richard! While you support Sanders as against Clinton, except in the Presidential election that counts, does that mean you will vote for Clinton? Reading recent comments attributed to her, she is 110% in the Zionist Camp!

      • Richard Falk July 27, 2015 at 5:51 am #

        No, my present disposition is to find a third party candidate to vote for. Of course, if Trump or his equivalent is the Republican
        candidate I would think twice, my prudential self taking precedence over my principled self!

  22. Kata Fisher July 29, 2015 at 8:16 am #

    A Note:

    Planed Parenthood is the worst place that society is directing their community toward due to Planed Parenthood client base: expecting mothers.

    It is the abomination that psychologically, emotionally and sexually abused women end up in “Planed Parenthood” care. Meaning women that are not in their sound mind realy need Psychiatric care as well as understanding of the medical care that they are asking for: abortions.

    women (and mostly girls) neither have legitimate Psychiatric care nor medical care for a medical procedure that they are really asking for or requering.

    Women’s reproductive right should not entail mediocre care nor ghetto places ( so to say) where they possibly could be to the death.

    In this point in time US has no legitimate legal reproductive right for women – not in Planed Parenthood frame.
    The reality of Planed Parenthood is that it could be legitimately done away with.

    In addition to that – I came across the term “forced abortions” and “binge abortions” (serial abortions). Both Illegal.

    Women (and mostly girls) that are not psychologically, emotionally and sexually abused do not seek abortions – they not even in a sound state of mind when they decide on the abortive process.

    Intensive Psychiatric care and hospitalization are more human right relevant. Planed Parenthood is absolutely not – it is an illegitimate “sider” (just as many others posing as “legitimate siders” Nonprofits /NGO’s” that leaches onto society).

    New Healthcare Laws could give legitimate option to woman’s reproductive care in US. It would be definitely more human approach toward expecting mothers in a society.

    For the Church, these things are no New thing or new news, but the fact is that people are spiritually excommunicated (individually and corporately), and they can choose and do whatever they want.

    It is easy to proof check for a healthy society: the condition of their the child.

    What about the quality of the conscience / judgement in no equality – but one should be equal before the law. For that reason, there are also diverse representatives. Church and Churched people can definitely be legitimate representatives.

    With equality of human conscience? I do not think so.

  23. Kata Fisher July 30, 2015 at 2:42 pm #

    Another Note to previous note:

    This article (Just for a random example) documents how a former Hospital Psychologist was able to implement a program that is effective for mentally disabled people in the Chicago jail. When she started working, and while she was working at the jail, she was able to identify mental disability factor. I am amazed that only she was equipped to do such thing. This is amazing case study to me. She should be doing training on that what she did and how she did that. I am sure that there are plenty jails and not just in Chicago area and to actually qualified Psychiatrist and/or Psychologist.

    • Kata Fisher July 30, 2015 at 2:45 pm #

      A correction: I am sure that there are plenty jails and not just in Chicago area and to actually qualified Psychiatrist and/or Psychologist.

      It should read:

      “I am sure that there are plenty jails and not just in Chicago area and to many actually qualified Psychiatrist and/or Psychologist.”

      • Kata Fisher August 1, 2015 at 7:32 am #

        Anoter Note:

        This girl, Eman al-Obeidi was raped in Lybia and defiled with evil spirits that came from evil men that took charge over her.

        Few years ago – when she was stalked by the journalist, I was reading about her and I realised that she was in grave harm here in The US (due to that imposed spiritual condition on to her & culture of death that is around her). As I watched her I had brainstorming and I understood what was going on. (I also watched her before when she stormed in that hotel, as well.)

        I told Mr O’Conner that she needed ministry of deliverance – by the Church if Muslim do not know or have means to do that.

        I am not sure that he did. Most likely he did noting and no one was sent to her. Occasionally faith leaders just have to work together and they are neither informed by their community/citizens – not they will to want to do that.

        Should that girl be imprisoned in order to get valid spiritual, psyhological, emotional and medical care that she did not get? I do not think so.

        Is that how far she was pushed around in culture of death?

  24. Kata Fisher August 5, 2015 at 8:23 pm #

    I just remembered this today. This is so relevant for this point in time. You may like to read it.

    Evangelium Vitae: It was written by Pope Paul John II in March 1995.

    “Am I my brother’s keeper?” (Gen 4:9): a perverse idea of freedom

    18. The panorama described needs to be understood not only in terms of the phenomena of death which characterize it but also in the variety of causes which determine it. The Lord’s question: “What have you done?” (Gen 4:10), seems almost like an invitation addressed to Cain to go beyond the material dimension of his murderous gesture, in order to recognize in it all the gravity of the motives which occasioned it and the consequences which result from it.

    Decisions that go against life sometimes arise from difficult or even tragic situations of profound suffering, loneliness, a total lack of economic pros- pects, depression and anxiety about the future. Such circumstances can mitigate even to a notable degree subjective responsibility and the consequent culpability of those who make these choices which in themselves are evil. But today the prob- lem goes far beyond the necessary recognition of these personal situations. It is a problem which exists at the cultural, social and political level, where it reveals its more sinister and disturbing aspect in the tendency, ever more widely shared, to interpret the above crimes against life as legitimate expressions of individual freedom, to be acknowledged and protected as actual rights.

    In this way, and with tragic consequences, a long historical process is reaching a turning-point. The process which once led to discovering the idea of “human rights”-rights inherent in every person and prior to any Constitution and State legislation-is today marked by a surprising contradiction. Precisely in an age when the inviolable rights of the person are solemnly proclaimed and the value of life is publicly affirmed, the very right to life is being denied or trampled upon, especially at the more significant moments of existence: the moment of birth and the moment of death.

    On the one hand, the various declarations of human rights and the many initiatives inspired by these declarations show that at the global level there is a growing moral sensitivity, more alert to acknowledging the value and dignity of every individual as a human being, without any distinction of race, nationality, religion, political opinion or social class.

    On the other hand, these noble proclamations are unfortunately contradicted by a tragic repudiation of them in practice. This denial is still more distressing, indeed more scandalous, precisely because it is occurring in a society which makes the affirmation and protection of human rights its primary objective and its boast. How can these repeated affirmations of principle be reconciled with the continual increase and widespread justification of attacks on human life? How can we reconcile these declarations with the refusal to accept those who are weak and needy, or elderly, or those who have just been conceived? These attacks go directly against respect for life and they represent a direct threat to the entire culture of human rights. It is a threat capable, in the end, of jeopardizing the very meaning of democratic coexistence: rather than societies of “people living together”, our cities risk becoming societies of people who are rejected, marginalized, uprooted and oppressed. If we then look at the wider worldwide perspective, how can we fail to think that the very affirmation of the rights of individuals and peoples made in distinguished international assemblies is a merely futile exercise of rhetoric, if we fail to unmask the selfishness of the rich countries which exclude poorer countries from access to development or make such access dependent on arbitrary prohibitions against procreation, setting up an opposition between development and man himself? Should we not question the very economic models often adopted by States which, also as a result of international pressures and forms of conditioning, cause and aggravate situations of injustice and violence in which the life of whole peoples is degraded and trampled upon?

    19. What are the roots of this remarkable contradiction?

    We can find them in an overall assessment of a cultural and moral nature, beginning with the mentality which carries the concept of subjectivity to an extreme and even distorts it, and recognizes as a subject of rights only the person who enjoys full or at least incipient autonomy and who emerges from a state of total dependence on others. But how can we reconcile this approach with the exaltation of man as a being who is “not to be used”? The theory of human rights is based precisely on the affirmation that the human person, unlike animals and things, cannot be subjected to domination by others. We must also mention the mentality which tends to equate personal dignity with the capacity for verbal and explicit, or at least perceptible, communication. It is clear that on the basis of these presuppositions there is no place in the world for anyone who, like the unborn or the dying, is a weak element in the social structure, or for anyone who appears completely at the mercy of others and radically dependent on them, and can only communicate through the silent language of a profound sharing of affection. In this case it is force which becomes the criterion for choice and action in interpersonal relations and in social life. But this is the exact opposite of what a State ruled by law, as a community in which the “reasons of force” are replaced by the “force of reason”, historically intended to affirm.

    At another level, the roots of the contradiction between the solemn affirmation of human rights and their tragic denial in practice lies in a notion of freedom which exalts the isolated individual in an absolute way, and gives no place to solidarity, to openness to others and service of them. While it is true that the taking of life not yet born or in its final stages is sometimes marked by a mistaken sense of altruism and human compassion, it cannot be denied that such a culture of death, taken as a whole, betrays a completely individualistic concept of freedom, which ends up by becoming the freedom of “the strong” against the weak who have no choice but to submit.

    It is precisely in this sense that Cain’s answer to the Lord’s question: “Where is Abel your brother?” can be interpreted: “I do not know; am I my brother’s keeper?” (Gen 4:9). Yes, every man is his “brother’s keeper”, because God entrusts us to one another. And it is also in view of this entrusting that God gives everyone freedom, a freedom which possesses an inherently relational dimension. This is a great gift of the Creator, placed as it is at the service of the person and of his fulfilment through the gift of self and openness to others; but when freedom is made absolute in an individualistic way, it is emptied of its original content, and its very meaning and dignity are contradicted.

    There is an even more profound aspect which needs to be emphasized: freedom negates and destroys itself, and becomes a factor leading to the destruction of others, when it no longer recognizes and respects its essential link with the truth. When freedom, out of a desire to emancipate itself from all forms of tradition and authority, shuts out even the most obvious evidence of an objective and universal truth, which is the foundation of personal and social life, then the person ends up by no longer taking as the sole and indisputable point of reference for his own choices the truth about good and evil, but only his subjective and changeable opinion or, indeed, his selfish interest and whim.

    20. This view of freedom leads to a serious distortion of life in society. If the promotion of the self is understood in terms of absolute autonomy, people inevitably reach the point of rejecting one another. Everyone else is considered an enemy from whom one has to defend oneself. Thus soci- ety becomes a mass of individuals placed side by side, but without any mutual bonds. Each one wishes to assert himself independently of the other and in fact intends to make his own interests prevail. Still, in the face of other people’s analogous interests, some kind of compromise must be found, if one wants a society in which the maximum possible freedom is guaranteed to each individual. In this way, any reference to common values and to a truth absolutely binding on everyone is lost, and social life ventures on to the shifting sands of complete relativism. At that point, everything is negotiable, everything is open to bargaining: even the first of the fundamental rights, the right to life.

    This is what is happening also at the level of politics and government: the original and inalienable right to life is questioned or denied on the basis of a parliamentary vote or the will of one part of the people-even if it is the majority. This is the sinister result of a relativism which reigns unopposed: the “right” ceases to be such, because it is no longer firmly founded on the inviolable dignity of the person, but is made subject to the will of the stronger part. In this way democracy, contradicting its own principles, effectively moves towards a form of totalitarianism. The State is no longer the “common home” where all can live together on the basis of principles of fundamental equality, but is transformed into a tyrant State, which arrogates to itself the right to dispose of the life of the weakest and most defenceless members, from the unborn child to the elderly, in the name of a public interest which is really nothing but the interest of one part. The appearance of the strictest respect for legality is maintained, at least when the laws permitting abortion and euthanasia are the result of a ballot in accordance with what are generally seen as the rules of democracy. Really, what we have here is only the tragic caricature of legality; the democratic ideal, which is only truly such when it acknowledges and safeguards the dignity of every human person, is betrayed in its very foundations: “How is it still possible to speak of the dignity of every human person when the killing of the weakest and most innocent is permitted? In the name of what justice is the most unjust of discriminations practised: some individuals are held to be deserving of defence and others are denied that dignity?” 16 When this happens, the process leading to the breakdown of a genuinely human co-existence and the disintegration of the State itself has already begun.

    To claim the right to abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, and to recognize that right in law, means to attribute to human freedom a perverse and evil significance: that of an absolute power over others and against others. This is the death of true freedom: “Truly, truly, I say to you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin” (Jn 8:34).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: