Sandra Bushman said she was “increasingly frightened” and had to take the children out of town for the weekend of April 12th through the 14th to protect them from their dad. She said this was because it “seem[ed]” that dad was comparing himself to someone who did do something tragic. This escalating behavior by Bushman is a continuing pattern of irrational and illegal attempts to estrange the father, a pattern of illegal and detrimental conduct that extends back to 2002 when the kids were quite young. First, no comparison was ever made by dad. Moreover, on the weekend in question, dad was minding his own business—as is his general custom. On Friday evening (the 12th), dad ate dinner, talked on the phone, drank a Dr. Pepper, and read a novel. On Saturday morning he went for a walk on the beach, followed by working on projects from 10AM to 6PM. That evening, dad exercised, did laundry, wrote, listened to KPFA radio, and read. Sunday morning (the 14th) dad attended fellowship services, followed by helping an injured friend with needed yardwork and other tasks, and more work on his own projects. Sunday night, dad ate, watched some basketball while taking care of bookkeeping, and read. On many occasions, admittedly, dad cried and worried himself sick on how deeply the mother’s criminal conduct was abusing his kids. As a footnote, dad was hours away from Bushman. Sandra Bushman continued through the weekend with her horrendous habit of poisoning the children, encouraging them to fear their father with her self-serving conjecture, and with predictable consequences. Dad has reported Bushman’s violations, which have attacked and damaged dad’s life severely as well as others, of court decrees since 2006. There has been absolutely no law enforcement to date. Despite these provocative and insane acts by Bushman, her “peeps,” and ostensible “authorities,” dad remains peaceful. He is, as you might surmise, brokenhearted. There are modalities of thought control that operate in power relations, and one of the most effective devices is the manipulative bounding of the thinkable. Those who dare challenge power, if only by thought or words, and seek control over their lives and fate are regarded as “threats.” The struggle for dignity, freedom, and truth seems inexplicable in other terms. Slave owners offered these arguments as did Mother England against the ingrate Americans in 1776. Likewise, Bushman will not allow the thought that dad is okay to enter into discussion. To do so would be, in her words, “unstable” and “erratic.” Rousseau wrote with withering contempt about those who “do nothing but boast incessantly of the peace and repose they enjoy in their chains” but when he saw some scorn this sad state of “voluptuousness” and “endure hunger, fire, the sword, and death to preserve only their independence, [he felt] that it does not behoove slaves to reason about freedom.” Those who think these are mere words care little about common sense, minimal accountability, and fidelity to facts. In this case, they would understand little about the behavioral habits of Sandra Bushman and her accomplices. Again, is history relevant?
Posted on: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 18:52:11 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015