In June 2015 the Presidential Advisor of Barack Obama, mrs. Valerie June Bowman Jarret, commissioned a video on the call for a ban on reparative therapy that she wanted the President to sign. He was, by the way, her protegé way back then in his early days in Chicago. She was the businesswoman who brought him to power.
“Valerie June Bowman Jarrett (born November 14, 1956) is an American government official who is currently the Senior Advisor to the President, and Assistant to the President for Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs. She is a Chicago lawyer, businesswoman, and civic leader.”
As the first employer of Michelle Obama in Chicago in 1991, so says wikipedia, her encouraging Michelle’s new boyfriend, an enthusiastic lawyer called Barack, to be a politician, has turned out to be the best investment she ever made. As presidential advisor now at the White House she has become millionaire for all her advice activities inside and outside the White House. She is, so she says, deeply concerned about the poor. Easy said with such a cashflow (see wikipedia, $850.000 from the White House and at least $346.000 from lobbyists a year). The Republicans abhored her nomination to no avail, according to wikipedia.
On an early Wednesday morning the President signs the proposal which lobbyists had handed to her, together with more important stuff on IS and Iran that really need his attention. He never heard, or asked for, both sides of the argument. The Washington Times writes that she “hails the presidential decision”. How strange when she was the one who handed it to him. There was this online petition, with no adresses or unique ip-adresses, set up by three small radical gaylib splinter groups.
See for the White House video on Youtube (in which she also appears, analyzed in one of our next blogs): http:/tinyurl.com/pfn9nbr
Let us look at what the second speaker in the video has to say with dramatic lighting and piano funeral music in the background:
“Conversion therapy can be called many things. We used to call things like this brainwashing or reprogramming. It is all about making people conform to the way things are. But if society is going to grow, we need to move beyond the way things are to the way things should be, the way things ought to be.”
What is going on
What on earth is she talking about? What kind of “things like this” were called brainwashing? What other things? People were made, so she says, to conform to certain ways. But we need to move on, she says. Does she mean that now people should be made to conform to other things? That it is our task to “make people conform”? To her secret agenda, the lobbyists?
Note how she does not come up with freedom: freedom of thought, religion, choice or speech, the good old American values. She, the White House, merely wants to make people conform to another idealogical agenda.
And she wants state power, which is basically the monopoly of state violence, to be used on people who do not comply to her idealogical views. A ban means politically motivated interference in the professional independance and responsibility of licensed therapists. It means detective work, it means creating evidence for persecution, it means punishing and deterring dissident thinking or thinkers. It means monitoring therapists and their clients who fail yet again and who discuss feelings for the opposite sex after initially being punished for doing so. Thinking of the opposite sex is, after all, “harmful”, so we are told over and over again.
We used to call this many things. We used to call it totalitarian, Soviet Union, East German Republic. One in three Romanian civilians under Causcescu was recruited during the Cold War to spy on others (Securitate, a kind of NSA) and to report to the authorities in Bucarest. Are we to report to this presidency about politically incorrect doctors? After all, we already have the eavesdropping of the NSA to help the president along to smoke out the culprit. In the White House you press the red button for the atom bomb, and the pink button for your computer list of dissident doctors. Will it come to this?
Our point of view: since when is it a doctor’s business or even his/her ethical duty to “move patients to the way things in society ought to be”? Since when is changing society a medical duty? And in what direction should society change? It just depends on who you are asking, the powers that be. The change envisioned by the Democratic Party? The Soviet Politburo? The Chinese Central Committee, all of whom order doctors around? Donald Trump, the simpleton?
In our view, a doctor should just negotiate with his client until both agree on a therapy plan with no outside coercive force, neither from a “God hates Gays” movement nor a “Down with Reparative Therapy” movement. It’s just about me and my doctor.