Yesterday, I picked up a brochure that I had created three years ago for a grassroots, indigenous African organization--Back to the Bible Truth (BBT) in Uganda, East Africa. Founded in 1979 by Alex Mitala, a man who is now in his 50's, BBT is on a mission "to love actively, to serve practically, and to transform unprivileged Ugandans into dependable and constructive citizens by the preaching of the true gospel of Jesus Christ.
The nation of Uganda was once described by Winston Churchill as "the pearl of Africa." This pearl is currently undergoing great transformation. For example, in the 1980's, approximately 30% of Ugandans were stricken with the AIDS virus. As of 2005, only 6% were infected.
BBT directly contributed to the decline of AIDS-infected citizens through the Glory of Virginity Movement, also known as GLOVIMO. Started in 1985, GLOVIMO has been teaching youth and children how to fight HIV/AIDS through abstinence and monogamous marital relationships.
Misleading cultural traditions (polygamy, wife-inheritance) as well as blood and sexual practices are revealed as unsafe and detrimental through BBT conferences and GLOVIMO rallies.
BBT knows that people perish for lack of knowledge. They educate their people, so fewer are perishing.
How did they manage to turn the tide on the AIDS epidemic? The got to the root of the issue. They didn't manage its symptoms.
Putting a condom on the problem only makes it worse--just take a look at the other African nations suffering increasing mortality rates from HIV/AIDS. What has been their solution? "Safe sex." What has been their demise? "Safe sex."
The wife of the president of Uganda has said that all that stands between her people and the death of her nation is a thin sheath, and she intends to ensure that her country is aware of the the failure rates and the unreliability of condoms. She understands the grave danger that lurks behind the "safe sex" message. The only safe sex, as taught by BBT and GLOVIMO, is monogamous sex in the context of a committed, marital relationship.
There's an old saying among African tribes: When a Lion Enters Your Village, Sound the Alarm Loudly. BBT has sounded the alarm through their GLOVIMO conferences, their broadcasts, their ministry schools, their churches, their orphanages, their schools, their medical clinics--even those who labor the fields to produce crops to feed the orphans understand and follow the message: "Before marriage, no sex. After marriage, sex!"
Define a man as "property" and you have "slavery." Define a baby as a "choice," (or as Obama has stated, "punishment" for a "mistake"), and you have a multi-billion dollar abortion industry.
Did you know that abortion is the most common surgical procedure in the U.S.? Did you know that the "Freedom of Choice Act" is designed to grow that number, not reduce it? Did you know that Obama voted four times against the "Born Alive Infants Protection Act"? Did you know that when he says that he supports providing medical care to "babies" who are born alive, he doesn't mean a child born alive during an "abortion." Leaving a child that has been born alive--whether that child exited the mother's womb as a result of a "live birth" or an "abortion"--is infanticide. And Obama has shown four times, through his voting record, his support for infanticide. In less than 10 years, the killing in Nazi Germany moved from unwanted children to three-year-olds to 17-year-olds to adults.
Definitions are important.
When slaves were defined as "property," they could be bought and sold, abused and neglected, raped and murdered . . . without recourse. The government's relationship to slaves changed dramatically when the definition of a slave changed from "property" to "human being," who, then, is "created equal" with the same "self-evident" rights "endowed by their Creator" to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" (The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776).
Now, did anything change fundamentally in the person of a slave? Did that person suddenly become more human or more valuable once defined as a person and not a piece of property? No. What changed was simply the relationship between a (former) slave and the American government, and as Paul Van Hoesen points out in his recent essay it took 89 years from the Declaration of Independence for slaves to be recognized as humans (http://www.pvanhoesen.com/images/The_wheels_of_Justice_Turn_slowly_but_they_do_turn.pdf) .
Today, we face a similar issue. A baby that is unwanted is defined as an "embryo" or a "fetus" or a "blob of tissue" or a "choice." However, matters become complicated when that fetus or blob of tissue arrives outside the mother's womb as an intact, living, breathing baby. Now, in Illinois, there currently does not exist a law to protect babies born alive during abortions.
Want proof? On page 29 of the State of Illinois 92nd General Assembly Regular Session Senate Transcript, you'll find that the "Induced Birth Infant Liability Act," which became known as the "Born Alive Infants Protection Act" would "create a cause of action where medical care, as provided for in Senate Bill 1663, is not provided" (http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST040402.pdf).
As I read through the transcript, I took note of the following quotes from Senator Obama: " . . . one of the things that we were concerned about, was what impact this would have with the respect to the relationship between the doctor and the patient and what liabilities the doctor might have in this situation" . . . adding a--an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments [confirm that the baby was, in fact, born alive and is also considered "viable"], is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion . . . this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births . . . because if these are children who are being born alive, I, at least, have confidence that a doctor who is in that room is going to make sure that they're looked after" (pp. 31-34, boldface mine).
"This issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births." Do you see what he's saying here? It's a matter of rhetoric. According to Obama, "abortion" cannot produce a "baby" because it is not, by contractual agreement, a "live birth"; he says that if it were, then the "original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion" would be "burdened."
Why can Obama say, with full confidence that "a doctor who is in that room is going to make sure that they're looked after"? It is because he considers a baby born during a "live birth" different from a fetus produced from a botched abortion.
(By the way have you ever considered the definition of "botched abortion"? A "botched abortion" is an abortion that produces a live baby. My friend Gianna Jessen is the product of a "botched abortion." It says so on her birth certificate. I've actually seen it with my own eyes. You can find out more about her at http://bornalivetruth.com.)
So, with his vote--against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act--Obama helped to ensure that babies born in IL during abortions would continue to receive the same treatment that brought the bill to the senate in the first place. Why were they voting on the issue? Evidence had been provided by a nurse named Jill Stanek that doctors in an IL hospital were actually leaving live babies to die. Those babies were not protected by law.
Did Obama know that evidence existed? Yes. In fact, nurses Allison Baker and Jill Stanek testified "before Barack Obama in the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee," even though Obama would have you believe that no evidence was provided that babies were being left to die ( I'd like to submit that, again, this is a matter of rhetoric since Obama's definition of "baby" is very specific. According to Obama, babies are only born during "live births," so he can say with full confidence that "babies" were not being left to die.
Are babies that are wanted by their parents fundamentally different from babies that are unwanted?
When does a baby stop being a "fetus" and become a "baby"? And which is more important: providing medical care to help preserve the life of a baby born alive during an abortion or protecting the contract between the abortionist and the mother? According to Obama (through his voting record and the transcript records), the contract is the one in need of protection. If the contract prevails and the baby is left to die, what you have is a case of infanticide, which is one step closer to the elimination of those who can actually speak for themselves.
For a brief interview with Jill Stanek regarding Obama's position, go to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z65F0z-UKmk.
One last thought. . . while we would all agree that several issues were at stake during WWII and the Civil War, which issues do you think were most foundational--most critical--most pivotal? May I submit to you that regardless of the other issues at play during this election, the most foundational, the most critical, the most pivotal, is the protection of children who are born alive, whether they are alive because of a "live birth" or a "botched abortion," they still deserve full protection from the law. They are not "property," but rather, "humans," who are "created equal" with the same "self-evident" rights "endowed by their Creator" to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" (The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776).
I Might Be a Democrat . . . Earlier today, I read an article that reminded me of a time when I was in high school. I had a teacher who called herself "The Queen B." Many of her students joked that she should run for president. Since I really liked her and agreed with much of what she said, I assumed I must be a "liberal" democrat, just like she was. In high school, it was much more popular (to me, at least) to be liberal than conservative; I couldn't wait to go to a liberal arts school. Truthfully, though, I had no idea what any of the rhetoric meant. I just knew how I felt when someone said liberal (free/liberated) or conservative (bound/restricted).
Then, I won a national competition and showed up in national television commercials. My picture was plastered all over the local paper. My dad asked me to be the guest speaker at a republican men's meeting. I read their little brochure and thought, "Oh, crap. I think I'm a republican." It didn't matter much at the time since I didn't even register to vote until I was nearly 25. (Don't follow my example--register to vote as soon as you have the privilege!)
One of the things that I remember my democrat teacher saying was, "In a democracy, a woman has the right to make a wrong decision." She was obviously pro-abortion. Since then, I've wondered, "In a democracy, does a child molester have the right to make a wrong decision? A rapist? A murderer?" Even more recently, I've thought, "Does a person who speeds on the Interstate have the right to make a wrong decision? What about someone who neglects to renew their vehicle registration? Someone who doesn't pay their fines?"
What's the difference, really?
The difference lies in what our government will support versus what it will condemn. Laws are made to protect the people, right?
The question I'd like to pose is, "Which people will our laws protect in the next four years? In the next 30?"
When Does Abortion End and Infanticide Begin? The Born Alive Infants Protection Act "defines 'born-alive infant' to include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. Defines 'born alive' to mean the complete expulsion or extraction from the mother of an infant, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion."
Should babies who are born alive during abortions be offered medical treatment? In other words, should the doctor who is trying to deliver a dead baby (by attempting to kill the infant in utero), then try to save the baby's life once the attempted abortion fails? When exactly does abortion end and infanticide--the murder of infants--begin?
I have to wonder which is more important: honoring the contract a woman made with a doctor to deliver a dead baby or helping to sustain a baby born alive during a botched abortion?
Obama voted in favor of leaving a LIVE baby to die if the baby was born during an abortion attempt. He voted against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act four times. Not just once, but four times.
In a recent Facebook comment, an Obama supporter said something like, "The law in Illinois at the time protected babies who were born alive. This vote wasn't going to change that." Really? Are you sure?
A little research will prove otherwise. According to the Fact-Check page on the Born Alive Truth website, "In 1999 a gruesome discovery was made that an Illinois hospital was shelving babies to die in a soiled utility room who had survived their abortions . . . " see the full article HERE. While Barack Obama would have you believe that, "There was no documentation that hospitals were actually doing what was alleged," he neglects to mention that Jill Stanek, a labor and delivery nurse in Illinois testified before congress to the contrary. She held a dying baby that was refused medical treatment and watched him breathe his last breath. See her full story HERE.
The Unimaginable Becomes Imaginable;
Then It Becomes Common
Do you realize that as late as 1950, abortion was against the law? Adults living in the 1950s (my grandparents, for example) would have considered abortion unthinkable. Today, we live in a culture where adults consider infanticide unthinkable but abortion a "right." What has changed? Simply, a change in what is "acceptable thought."
Acceptable thought changes throughout time. History continually repeats itself as in the examples set before us by Christian Overman, the author of Assumptions that Affect Our Lives, "Infanticide was commonly accepted and widely practiced in ancient Greece. The Spartans tossed unwanted children from the side of Mt. Taygetus, and the Athenians exposed them to the elements in earthen jars placed next to the temples of their gods." Now fast-forward to the early to mid-1940s in Nazi, Germany where "there was a special agency set up for the purpose of child termination. It was made up of psychiatric and pediatric experts, whose function it was to decide--entirely on their own--which children were to be eliminated" (1996, p. 67).
In his book The Sign for Cain, Dr. Fredric Wertham writes of the agency that Overman described:
The children slated for death were sent to special "children's divisions." ... They were killed mostly by increasing doses of Luminal or other drugs either spoon-fed as medicine or mixed with their food. The dying lasted for days, sometimes weeks. In actual practice, the indications for killing eventually became wider and wider. Included were children who had "badly molded ears," who were bed-wetters, or who were perfectly healthy but designated as "difficult to educate." The children coming under the authority of the Reich Commission were originally mostly infants. The age was then increased from three years to seventeen years. Later, in 1944 and 1945, the work of the commission also included adults (quoted from Assumptions that Affect Our Lives by Christian Overman, 1996, p. 69).
In case you need help with the math, in less than 10 years, the killing went from unwanted children to three-year-olds to 17-year-olds to adults.
Couldn't happen in America? Consider this: while abortion was unthinkable in the 1950s, today it's embraced by many as a "right" or a "choice." Infanticide is currently unthinkable to many Americans. We have a hard time believing that babies who are aborted couldn't possibly be born alive. They're just a blob of tissue, right? My dear friend and former employer Gianna Jessen, who was born during a saline abortion, is proof that a baby is not a blob of tissue and that babies who survive abortion attempts can go on to live full and prosperous lives given proper medical treatment at birth.
What if the abortionist had been present during Gianna's birth in 1977? She would have received proper medical treatment, right? Not so. The truth is, she would have been strangulated, suffocated, or left to die. Sadly, infanticide has been a reality in our country for years.
"Even as far back as 1982, legal infanticide hit the headlines when the Indiana Supreme Court officially sanctioned the deliberate withholding of medical treatment and the subsequent starvation of a newborn child known to millions as 'Infant Doe.' Born with Down's Syndrome, the baby suffered from a blocked esophagus that could have been easily corrected through routine surgery. But the court granted the parents authority to withhold food. After six days, Infant Doe starved to death, not in an earthen jar, but in a modern, sterile American hospital" Assumptions that Affect Our Lives by Christian Overman (1996), p. 69.
Sobering, isn't it? The law protected the parents from being tried for murder. They let their baby starve to death, and the law protected them--not their baby. As a believer, I am commissioned to stand up for and plead the case of the orphan and the widow. This is my plea.
When you think of women in abortion clinics, do you think of white, middle class girls who have no where to turn or who don't want to tarnish their reputations or who want a better future for themselves than taking care of a baby at 16? Did you know that abortion clinics target the poor and the minorities? Did you know that most abortion clinics are located in poor neighborhoods? Did you know that Obama supports Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of abortions in the United States?
If you're voting for Obama because you believe he's pleading the case of the poor and bringing change to our nation on their behalf, consider these sobering statistics taken from the website that used to be called "black genocide." It now bears the title Klan Parenthood:
In America today, almost as many African-American children
are aborted as are born.
A black baby is three times more likely to be
murdered in the womb than a white baby.
Since 1973, abortion has reduced the black population by over 25 percent.
Twice as many African-Americans have died from abortion than have died from
AIDS, accidents, violent crimes, cancer, and heart disease combined.
Every three days, more African-Americans are killed by abortion than
have been killed by the Ku Klux Klan in its entire history.
Planned Parenthood operates the nation's largest chain of abortion clinics and
almost 80 percent of its facilities are located in minority neighborhoods.
About 13 percent of American women are black, but they
submit to over 35 percent of the abortions.
Roe, Roe, Roe Your Boat Gently to the Widest Application Possible
Obama is a huge supporter of Planned Parenthood, which was founded by an avowed racist, socialist, and eugenist.
In his July 17, 2007 speech to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund Obama said,
"We know that a woman's right to make a decision about how many children she wants to have and when— without government interference—is one of the most fundamental freedoms we have in this country. . . . I have worked on this issue for decades now.I put Roe at the center of my lesson plan on reproductive freedom when I taught constitutional law. . . So, you know where I stand. . . The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.That's the first thing that I'd do."
If you don't know about the Freedom of Choice Act, it was written by the most radical pro-abortion activists because they saw informed consent and parental consent laws being passed at the state level. They wanted something powerful that would dismantle anything that could serve to reduce abortions through requiring that people be told the truth before an abortion or before their sixteen year old, who can't be given an aspirin without their permission, can have an abortion.
Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America. Obama standing in front of them and promising he's 100% on their side is the equivalent of a presidential candidate 160 years ago addressing an assembly of the owners of the slave ships, and saying, “If you elect me, the first thing I will do is sign an act that will insure slaves won’t be freed, and that nullifies any and all voter-approved state legislation that restricts slavery.” (And sadly, yes, even hearing this, some Christians would have campaigned for and voted for him.)
Now, “first thing” means first thing, right? So before helping the poor and protecting the environment and addressing the economy and national defense, what is President Obama going to do? He's going to assure that abortion stays legal and that the numbers are NOT reduced, by signing an act that will devastate decades of work at the state level by the pro-life movement. Requirements of parental notification and informed consent and bans on partial birth abortions? History, if Obama has his way. From the blog of Randy Alcorn.
Now, let's give a little history on the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger. In his book Grand Illusions: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood, Dr. George Grant uses Sanger's own words to describe her:
"[Margaret Sanger] was thoroughly convinced that the 'inferior races' were in fact 'human weeds' and a 'menace to civilization.' She believed that 'social regeneration' would only be possible as the 'sinister forces of the hordes of irresponsibility and imbecility' were repulsed. She had come to regard organized charity to ethnic minorities and the poor as a 'symptom of a malignant social disease' because it encouraged the prolificacy of 'defectives, delinquents, and dependents.' She yearned for the end of the Christian 'reign of benevolence' that the Eugenic Socialists promised, when the 'choking human undergrowth' of 'morons and imbeciles' would be 'segregated' and 'sterilized.' Her goal was 'to create a race of thoroughbreds' by encouraging 'more children from the fit, and less from the unfit.' And the only way to achieve that goal she realized, was through Malthusian Eugenics" (1988, p. 91). Internal quotes from Margaret Sanger, The Pivot of Civilization (New York: Brentano's, 1922, pp. 23, 176, 108, 110, 181, 264, 265). Final two internal quotes from Birth Control Review, 3:5 (May, 1919), and 5:11, (November, 1921).
If you haven't yet made the Nazi/socialist connections with Planned Parenthood and by proxy, to Obama, then maybe this will help drive home the point:
In 1933, the Review published "Eugenic Sterilization: An Urgent Need" by Ernst Rudin, who was Hitler's director of genetic sterilization and a founder of the Nazi Society for Racial Hygiene. And later that same year, it published an article by Leon Whitney entitled, "Selective Sterilization," which adamantly praised and defended the Third Reich's racial programs. The bottom line is that Planned Parenthood was self-consciously organized, in part, to promote and enforce White Supremacy. Like the Ku Klux Klan, the Nazi Party, and the Mensheviks, it has been from its inception implicitly and explicitly racist. And this racist orientation is all too evident in its various programs and initiatives: birth control clinics, the abortion crusade, and sterilization initiatives. Grand Illusions: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood by George Grant (1988), p. 92.
Did you know that many studies show that as birth control becomes more accessible, rather than declining, the number of unwanted pregnancies actually rises? And what do you think increases as a result? You guessed it: the demand for abortion. Remember where the majority of abortion clinics are located? Remember which babies are being aborted in far greater numbers than any other? A vote for Obama--or anyone in favor of abortion and infanticide--is not a vote in favor of the poor. It is a vote in favor of a continued and increased genocide.
Stealing Our Inheritance with Slick Talk Just like Planned Parenthood, the agenda today is carefully disguised. This quote from Dr. Grant's book written in 1988 will (hopefully) blow your mind:
Margaret and the Malthusian Eugenicists she had gathered about her were not partial; every non-Aryan--Red, Yellow, Black, or White--they were all noxious in their sight. . . . In 1939, they designed a "Negro Project" . . . "The mass of Negroes," the project proposal asserted, "particularly in the South, still breed carelessly and disastrously, with the result that the increase among Negroes, even more than among Whites, is from that portion of the population least intelligent and fit." . . . In order to remedy this "dysgenic horror story," the project aimed to hire three or four "Colored Ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities" to travel to various Black enclaves and propagandize for birth control." . . . The project was quite successful. Its genocidal intentions were carefully camouflaged beneath several layers of condescending social service rhetoric and organizational expertise. Like the citizens of Hamelin, lured into captivity by the sweet serenades of the Pied Piper, all too many Blacks all across the country happily fell into step behind Margaret and the Eugenic racists she had placed on her Negro Advisory Council" (pp. 92-93).
That was 1939, and things have changed since then, right? Well . . .
During the 1980s when Planned Parenthood shifted its focus from community-based clinics to school-based clinics, it again targeted inner-city minority neighborhoods. Of the more than one hundred school-based clinics that have opened nationwide in the last decade, none have been at substantially all-White schools. None have been at suburban middle-class schools. All have been at Black, minority, or ethnic schools. . . . In 1987 . . . a group of Black ministers, parents, and educators filed suit against the Chicago Board of Education. . . The clinics are a "calculated, pernicious effort to destroy the very fabric of family life among Black parents and their children," the suit alleged. They are "designed to control the Black population" and are "sponsored by the very governmental agency charged with the responsibility of reaching and promoting family life values. (Grand Illusions, p. 94).
Whose Responsibility is the Orphan and the Widow?
We'd all like to believe that the government has our best interest at heart. The truth is, the government has no heart. Individuals do. But the government does have our tax dollars, which is one of the ways that Planned Parenthood (and the genocide they support) continues to grow.
I don't believe that it is the responsibility of the government to care for the poor. Visit almost any home in the projects or spend the day in nearly any public school or visit nearly any government-run hospital. Do you honestly want more of that?
I've heard it said that people are inherently greedy and that we need the government to sanction giving so that we can provide for all. If that were the case, then how have neighborhoods and schools and hospitals continued throughout the ages and why do they exist in non-welfare countries?
I believe that those who are best at caring for the poor are those who are closest to them. Countless organizations exist for the sole purpose of caring for the poor. They do an amazing job with volunteers and grants and donations and fundraisers. We will always have the poor. That we know for sure. We are commissioned to care for the widow and the orphan. God has placed that responsibility upon us--he gives us the power and the means, and then he expects us to deliver. He wants to live through us.
I believe that those who are most qualified to educate our children are those who are closest to them--those who love them and believe in them. "You are your child's most important teacher," according to William Bennett who served as Secretary of Education under President Reagan. In the introduction to his book The Educated Child: A Parent's Guide from Preschool through Eighth Grade, Bennett quotes psychologist Urie Bronfenbrenner as saying, "the one indispensable condition for a child's successful upbringing is that at least one adult must have a deep and irrational attachment to him." He goes on to say, "In other words, someone must be absolutely crazy about that child. Children are put on this earth to be loved. They need unconditional devotion (not unconditional approval). When they grow up knowing that an adult is always there as guardian angel and guide, they thrive. When they sense that such devotion is missing, things can begin to go terribly wrong with their educations and their lives" (1999, p. 7).
Bennett encourages parents to take the lead role in their children's education. He tells us to resist the temptation to "hand more and more of our educational responsibilities to others. . . . If you turn over your most important responsibilities to others, you may doom his school career" (pp. 7-8). He says that a parent is the best teacher for one main reason: You love your child.
Does the government love our children? Does the government love the poor?
My husband, who showed me this excellent article today on Davy Crockett and welfare as well as a powerful follow-up article, says I'm more of a libertarian than a republican. I think he's right. In fact, if Ron Paul, a pro-life libertarian, had made it this far in the election, I'd probably have a big sign in my yard. I probably would have written a political post on my blog already. I probably would have voted by now.
Yes, I'm going to vote. And I'm sure I'll vote early, but as Jay Norris wrote on his Facebook recently, "I so badly want to vote for a candidate instead of against one."
Me, too, Jay.
I don't have faith in the government. When given the opportunity, I will vote for small government and against big government. I will also vote for the orphan, giving a voice to those who cannot speak for themselves.
While I do not have faith in the government, I do have great faith in my God and in His people.
I have seen first-hand the efforts of Ugandans without any government assistance whatsoever, charged with the mission to care for the widow and the orphan, change the face of their war-torn and AIDS-ravaged nation. I have watched them house, clothe, feed, educate, and love orphans. I have watched them rescue child mothers and care for their babies. I have watched them decrease the number of AIDS cases miraculously and exponentially. I have watched them selflessly give of themselves for years and years. How did they manage such tasks without the help of their corrupt government?
Hope for change cannot come from a political candidate.
I believe that a vote for Barack Obama, is a vote for expanded government, not a vote for reduced spending.
I believe a vote for Obama is a vote for veiled racism, not a vote giving hope to minorities.
I believe that a vote for Obama is a vote for socialism, not a vote opening the door for success for the poor.
I believe that a vote for Obama is a vote for genocide, not a vote for freedom of choice.
The show opens tomorrow night, but if you want to see a seamless production, wait until Saturday or Sunday (or even next weekend).
Here's a quick reminder of the details . . . I hope you can make it!
Oracle Productions presents The Warp and The Weave, an original play by Scott Crain. (YES, I'm in this one! I play Queen Freyja, who is based on Queen Vashti.)
Performances are at the Lamplighters Theatre in Smyrna at 7:30 each night. You have SIX nights to choose from: Friday-Sunday for two consecutive weekends (October 24-26 and October 31, November 1 & 2).
SYNOPSIS In a world resembling World War II Germany, a young Zionist girl is all that stands between an evil dictator and the annihilation of her people. Based on the story of Esther and starring Abbie Ebbensberger and Malcom Perry, The Warp and The Weave is not to be missed!
RESERVATIONS For reservations, call (615) 364-5199 or e-mail the director at scott@oracleproductions.org. Tickets are $10 each; group rates are available. Bring a church bulletin for buy one get one free tickets!
My sister took this fabulous picture yesterday when she and my mom came to visit on my 34th birthday. While I was in the shower, Heather was snapping pictures of my precious children on the front porch. This was the start of an oh, so fabulous day.
THANK YOU to Mom and Heather for taking me to lunch at Marche, one of my favorite little restaurants . . . for the nail file that lasts forever . . . for the apple cake that won't last through today . . . for Nana's banana nut bread. . . for loving on my Judah and Mira on my birthday. . . and for the birthday money that will be well spent! Mom, I've already started making a list of things I'm considering!
THANK YOU to Auntie Bec for taking me to dinner at another one of my favorite restaurants. Getting to eat fabulous food outside on a gorgeous October day with one of my favorite friends was THE BEST! Another big THANK YOU goes to Mary for watching the kiddos while I had a wonderful time with Becki. Mary, your gift was exactly what I needed!
Another HUGE THANK YOU to everyone who sent a Happy Birthday message my way! I feel SO loved and connected! This year I received more birthday messages than ever before. What a HAPPY, HAPPY birthday it was! I have the most amazing friends on the planet!!!
Oracle Productions presents The Warp & The Weave, a play by Scott Crain, October 24-26, 31 & Nov. 1 & 2 at Lamplighters Theatre, located at 14119 Old Nashville Hwy. in Smyrna. Show times are at 7:30 PM and tickets are $10 each. Group rates are available; bring a church bulletin, and tickets are buy one, get one free!
Based on the story of Esther, The Warp and The Weave stars Abbie Ebensberger and Malcolm Perry. For reservations, call (615) 364-5199 or e-mail the director at scott@oracleproductions.org.
[Lori Todd plays Queen Freyja, the character based on Queen Vashti.]
The Warp and The Weave reframes Biblical History The rich humor and irony of the Biblical story of Esther take on a modern twist as Oracle Productions presents Scott Crain's original work The Warp & The Weave.
The piece, which debuted back in 2003, is set in a world that resembles Germany at the height of its World War II regime. It follows a peasant girl who would be queen — a huge step of faith not withstanding.
Says Crain, Oracle's founder: "Esther is the only book of the Bible that doesn't specifically mention God, but his hand — working behind the scenes — is visible in every verse." It works off a Jewish literary principle that translates as "the reverse occurred," Crain says, and it happens so many times in the story that it sometimes borders on farce.
Catch it Oct. 24-Nov. 2 at 14119 Old Nashville Highway, on the campus of Smyrna Assembly. Performances are at 7:30 p.m. Fridays-Sundays. Tickets are $10; group rates are available. Details: 364-5199 or www.oracleproductions.org.
— FIONA SOLTES, FOR THE TENNESSEAN http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081012/ENTERTAINMENT0506/810120326/1069/ENTERTAINMENT05
Lest you think that I have perfect, angelic children (I was surprised to find that my dear friend Christy was actually under that impression during her most recent visit! She was relieved to discover that Judah is in many ways a typical four-year-old boy--and I become, on many days, a typical, over-tired, frustrated mom), I must share with you a few stories from this week about Judah, My Judah.
Judah gave himself a haircut on Friday. He found some scissors, locked himself in his room, and proceeded to cut his hair. Then, he started on the fur of his stuffed animals. He was working on the necktie of a bear when I walked in. "Aghast" is the first word that comes to mind.
Scanning the room, I noticed the necklace that Amanda gave me for being a bridesmaid in her wedding lay on the floor in two pieces. I started to cry. I went in the bathroom to collect myself (so I didn't blow up at Judah). He came in and tried to comfort me by assuring me it wasn't broken. Right.
I told him to go to bed (mostly to protect himself from getting into more trouble). James went up and dealt with it while I cooled off and found the vacuum. The next hour was spent trying to get the mess cleaned up. What a mess. What made it worse is that I was PMS-ing and didn't realize it.
Later that night, I put Judah in the tub and tried to fix his hair a bit. He had a couple long pieces of hair left, which I snipped off and tried to contain by doing it in the bathtub. When I asked him to change clothes, he got pretty upset. He even made a fist. I asked him what he was planning to do with it, and he started to snicker a little bit. I thought we were going to be able to laugh through it, but then he hit me in the face. Not hard, but just enough for me to react. And react I did.
At the risk of sounding like a total child-abuser, (I'm being REALLY transparent here), I smacked him back. I didn't even think about it. We were in each other's space, and as soon as I felt his hand on my face, I swung at him. Hard. He fell on the floor, crying. I just sat there, in shock, for a few minutes. He got up, went into his room, put on some new clothes, and waited.
I walked in and kneeled down in front of him. Our conversation went something like this:
"Judah, are you angry with me?" He shakes his head "No." "Do you think that Mommy made the right choice?" He shakes his head "No" emphatically. "Do you think that Mommy could have made a better choice?" He shakes his head "Yes." "Do you think that you could have made a better choice?" He shakes his head "Yes."
I apologized for hitting him and asked if he was ready to make it right with me. He said that he was sorry for hitting me, too. We embraced. I wept. Before we left the room, we were both laughing.
Later, in the laundry room, I sat him on my lap and said, "Judah, even though sometimes you make bad choices, no matter what how bad they are, you know what?" And he responded with the sweetest smile, "You still love me."
"That's right. And I will always love you. No matter what."
Which reminds me, I received a letter today from my incarcerated 29-year-old cousin who has a son the same age as my daughter (they're only four months apart). He's serving time while his mom raises his son. If you have any desire to write to him, I'll gladly give you his address. He wrote me back the same day he received my letter. He thrives on outside communication.
Back to Judah . . . I heard from his most recent babysitter that he tricked her into letting him watch The Pirates of the Caribbean. When she got a clue that he wasn't allowed to watch it yet (something he said about not being scared), she turned it off. Last night, he was chanting in the car, "Captain Jack Sparrow" over and over again. He said to his daddy, "Did you know that Captain Jack rescued a lady even though she wasn't a pirate?"
At least two days in a row, Judah reminded me that he had watched The Pirates of the Caribbean and wasn't scared at all. Never mind that he doesn't like to sleep in a room without a grown-up. Yeah, we won't mention that.
The same day he watched part of the movie, he dropped his food on the floor when Mary offered him some lunch. When she asked, "Why did you do that?" He said, "Because I didn't like it." The next day (or maybe it was that day after that), he was telling Miriam that he had more tea in his mug than she had in hers. Whenever that kind of thing happens, he gets whatever he's comparing taken away from him, so James took his tea and dumped out most of it. Judah stood there and cried for a minute before he turned it upside down and let the rest of it spill on the floor. I couldn't believe it. I don't remember him ever doing anything like that.
Incidentally, I feel as though I'm living with a different kid when he's had a lot of "screen" time, and he's had more screen time in the past two weeks than in the past six months combined. First, he watched several movies at Miss Paula's house while we were in the Bahamas because she was trying to get her house renovations completed. He also watched movies at Mary's, at Grace Center, and at a yard sale last Saturday. After the yard sale, he started saying "I hate you, Daddy," or "I hate (fill-in-the-blank)." I'm 100% sure it was something he picked up on the cartoon he was watching at the friend's house where the yard sale was being held. After a couple conversations about it, he played with the phrase for a day or two before he finally quit saying it.
I thought that maybe he was just in need of more "Mommy time" until I realized that he had so much screen time, and then I remembered a conversation I had with some farmer friends about how their son behaved after watching even 30 minutes of a simple show. Another friend said the same thing about her children. We've all found a direct correlation between screen time and deviant behavior.
Regardless of the cause, I do know that more Mommy/Judah time is necessary to get us back on track. Judah thrives on reading together, cuddling, positive encouragement (words of affirmation), imaginative play, storytelling, and letting him help me. I try to be cognizant of those needs and incorporate them into whatever we happen to be doing.
Today, while driving to Target to pick up toilet paper, I agreed to tell a story about a brave knight, a beautiful princess, and a fire-breathing dragon. Sometimes it's just easier to say no, that I'm too tired, that I don't have the energy, that I'm trying to focus on something else . . . . Today, however, I forced myself to go there. Pleased with the twists on the story (a blind princess with a keen auditory sense who heard the dragon's breath, warned the knight, and co-rescued the kingdom when the dragon stepped on the sword like a thumback and whimpered back to his cave to nurse his wound), I got to the end and realized that it didn't take as much energy as I originally thought. Judah was thrilled.
Tonight, I feel as though I have my Judah back. Is he an angel? No. But he's unbelieveably fabulous. Oh, and he and Miriam sat quietly through Lipscomb's beautiful production of Joseph and The Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat this afternoon. Well, Miriam did try to sing along toward the end, but other than that, they were fantastic.
Before putting Judah to bed, I read him a couple of Bible stories. When we were done, he asked while sitting on my lap, "What is the name of the first character I'll play on stage?"
"I have no idea, Judah."
"Mommy, just guess."
That boy is just itching to be on stage--just like his mama.
Most of what Miriam says comes out in two-word combinations. Her three-word combinations are especially notable. This morning, however, she thoroughly impressed me with this sentence (granted, it was spoken slowly, deliberately, and with pauses in between each word; but count 'em--FIVE words!): "Read this page again please."
The Fox 17 News story that I was interviewed for is now online. I don't know how long it will be there, so check it out now if you missed it on TV (like I did) . . .
I don't know how this girl from small-town KY ends up on television every few years even though she has never owned one, but it "shore is fun"! :0)
The first thing I said to Erika, the reporter, when she asked my opinion about the Bail-Out Bill was "It gives a whole new meaning to government housing." She asked me to expound.
"Basically, if you have a mortgage and the government just bought it, then who owns your house and your property? The government. That's a bit unsettling for me." I went on to say that that corporations and businesses do a good job of providing products and services; government, on the other hand, does not.
I can't say that I would like to see more government-run hospitals, schools, housing projects, etc. Even the mail system frustrates me. I can't remember the last time UPS or Fed-Ex or DHL lost one of my packages, but last year, I had a birthday card and a birthday package lost in the mail. Makes me nervous about using the postal system, to be quite honest. I closed with a few comments about how our nation is closer to socialism than we've ever been. Probably shouldn't have dropped the "S" word if I wanted to be heard on the news.
As it turns out, I was the only one interviewed in front of Fido in Hillsboro Village with a negative opinion about the bill. Imagine that.
And, oddly enough, I was the only one whose opinion was not aired on television. Can you say, "Media bias"? With four opinions for the bill and zero against it just further proves that you shouldn't get all your current events information from TV. At least they have a quote from me at the end of the interview online.
Yesterday morning, I hear Miriam calling from her room, "Maaaah-meeeee!" It turns into a song. I stand by the door to listen for a minute.
I walk in. She looks up, puts her hand on the back of her diaper and says, "Diap-ah. Off."
So I pick her up, and she points toward the changing table and says, "New. Diap-ah."
Once we get the messy diaper off and the new diaper on, she tugs on her jammies. "Shirt. Off." So we take off the jammies.
She points toward her room. "New. Shirt." We make our way over to her closet, where she says, "Puh-ple. Shirt."
She wore a purple shirt yesterday and the day before, so now they're all dirty. So she suggests, "Jacket." I try to put a shirt under the jacket. She pulls it off. "Jacket!"
Miriam walks out with a jacket (zipped up, no shirt beneath) and says, "Check-uh-Judah." The day begins, as do conversations with Mira. She's getting so big.
I never thought I'd say this, but I ate okra tonight and LOVED it! I had heard from two of the moms in my playgroup that they toss okra in olive oil and bake it so it's not slimy. Then, I got this recipe from my friend Lisa:
Roasted Okra Not slimy. Great finger food.
I pour coconut oil (or cooking oil of choice) in a pyrex lasagne dish. Place whole Okra, stems and all, in the oil and coat. Bake in a single layer in a 375 degree oven for roughly 30 minutes, stirring or turning once or twice. You can alter the cooking time to suit your tastes. I like them to brown a little. Allow to cool until they can be handled. Just pick them up by the stem and bite off the pod. I sprinkle mine with sea salt or Real salt. Gregory and Joseph like theirs plain.
Lisa
We got a box of produce yesterday (our CSA share) with a bunch of okra, so I thought, "What the heck? Let's give it a go." Guess what? AMAZING. Not like "tolerable," but AMAZING.
So tonight we ate fried chicken (a la chef James), fresh crowder peas, and roasted okra. I think last night we ate popcorn (organic and popped on the stove, drizzled with real butter with a few shakes of nutritional yeast and sea salt). :0) We're still recovering from four consecutive days at an all-inclusive resort where ALL of our meals and snacks were already prepared for us. I haven't wanted to prepare food for the past two days! We're gradually acclimating, though. As you can see . . . beginning with okra and crowder peas! Surprise!
