Saturday, July 30, 2011

Tag, Your Out

"And with, you'd be aggressively judgmental and intolerant too if you didn't have equal rights, like the ability to see your partner in the emergency room, make their final decisions, and be treated with the same respect everyone else enjoys.  This isn't a mere difference of opinion over whether chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla, these are people's lives"
There is no such thing as 'equal rights'. All 'rights' are inherently equal. There is only one universal ninety degree angle and in order to determine it as such it must be adjacent to something perfect and unchanging, that will be God.  As in baseball one is either on base or not. Or in a game of tag, where it doesen't matter how many people are on base, all are safe. However, one can not possesses a right any more than one can pick up a base and run around with it perfectly  immuned from being 'tagged out' throughout the game. One is either right, or they are not. The homosexual is not right. He is not in accordance with what is good, true and just.
We have only subcumb to this error because we have adpoted the inverted reasoning of the homosexual.
The psychosis of the homosexual is this idea of 'being the same'. It is a psychological error in perception that in fact, we are.  It is an extension of the narcissistic personality disorder. Rather than suffer the subjective feeling of isolation incurred through the realization that we as human souls do not exist in a great liberated state of a Brahmanian 'all', where we lose our individual identities. The homosexual seeks relief from this suffering in a misguided sense of liberation of soul into the 'everyman' and subsequently wants, what 'everyone else has'.   No, to have a subjective identity implies suffering because it implies separation from the others.  A recognition of who we are physically is a starting point. It is because I am male that I can not have sexual play with another male because it will come of nothing. The homosexual tends to be given to a deep level of sentimentalism, where by what they feel outweighs what is objectively true. What you feel is real but it is not necessarily true and thus, you must pull away from such activities. The same can be said to all the 'Romeo and Juilet's " in the world.

Monday, July 11, 2011

Can the State Bestow Gay Marriage On People?

According to Judge Von Walker, marriage has always been in the domain of the State in the United States. That is patently false, considering that the States imported marriage as they did banking and commercial behaviors from Europe, namely England. In fact England either operated under Catholic ideas of marriage or one very close to it Anglican ideas of marriage. That would explain why monogamy has long been valued and yet people will claim that they have no idea how that value surfaced and was maintained for so many years. In fact the Constitution of the United States says very little about marriage if anything at all.

"Marriage has a long history in the religious world. It has become so ingrained in the social fabric of the people of the nation, and indeed of the world, that the benefits of marriage to society at large became apparent. Because this religious rite had so many secular benefits, it became recognized by the secular world, and became subject to governmental definition and regulation."
- http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_marr.html
It is highly unlikely that as colonist or early Americans that many perceived as they do today that marriage by the state would be valid. When we simply look at the writing of President George Washington for instance, we get a sense of the temperament of men in his era.

"Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interposition of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us."
This was when President Washington officially put in place the holiday of Thanksgiving, is it astounding to anyone that no public official today not even the president could would have the strength to make such an overt reference to God in their speech?

Now as to the question of whether the state even has the power to marry people, this requires a little thought, at least a little more than what N.Y. State assembly members and senators gave the issue. Not to mention the governor and the mayor of NYC. If the state is to marry people, how are they to do it? How are they to make two people bind together through law? When we place two pieces of metal side by side they do not bind together unless by fusion of some sort heat or some adhesive. When we put two magnets together, the two if at polar opposite poles will bind together through magnetic attraction. When for instance one goes to the dentist or the doctors office and is X-rayed there is some small preparation put in place such as the use of a lead apron and the medical staff member running behind a lead wall, why is that? It is because in each of these cases there is a power or a force or an energy that is binding that is in fact either binding two objects together or taking an effect upon a person to such an extent that another would literally take precautions to avoid. One cannot see these forces such as magnetism or x-ray but yet scientifically, we are well aware that they are there. It is in fact what is producing the phenomena of the binding or the x-rays. If marriage is more than ceremony and certificiates, how then does the state bind two people together as many of the gays would like to say, 'forever'?

The state primarily deals with extrinsic and material affairs such as property rights. The only time the state has been able to bind one to another is when one is considered property. In fact filial responsibility can be determined because a child will actually have the properties of his parents, such as DNA. Thus unless on is bequeath to another as property in a 'gay-marriage' there really is no binding covenant between the two because there is no binding force which governs the two, say as between two magnets. It is not a matter of fiat, because there is no state recriminations or retaliation incurred upon the married couple if they divorce. In fact, as far as the state is concerned, the only role it plays is at the inception and the end of the so-called marriage. The state has no arbitrary role in the marriage for as long as the marriage exists. Why is it that a marriage created by the state is itself free of state intervention during its entire duration. Say for instance it is one partners day to do the dishes and they refuse, where then will the other seek redress. the police station, city hall? Has the state even assigned roles for the two members of this so called marriage?

When two people get together in holy matrimony they sacrifice themselves to be part of a something larger than themselves for reason other than themselves. God, the children and their neighbors and country always comes first. For instance in a Catholic marriage, the marriage is in no way dissolved because the two get a divorce from the state. What God has joined together no man has the power to part. The binding agent here is spiritual and separation through adultery is actionable, it comes with spiritual penalization as wells temporal excommunication from from the Holy Eucharist. Homosexuals fail to realize this. Whenever someone becomes part of something larger than themselves i.e. a group or organization they give up a part of their individualism. When they become a part of a sports team they standardize or uniform into that team they wear the team uniform. When they become a member of corporate society they tend to wear the suit and tie or whatever the prevailing dress code is of that industry. people assimilate into an order such as the military and that is how and why they receive respect and honor. Homosexuals don't want to self sacrifice they do not want to enter into a holy covenant. they prefer to remain in a juvenile psychological state objectifying themselves and subjectifying all things around them to themselves.

When reading Perry v. Schwarzeneggar, a case tried and decided by a homosexual we see clearly that the homosexual is too psychologically immature to actually contract into marriage.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SUPPORTS CALIFORNIA’S REFUSAL TO RECOGNIZE MARRIAGE BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THEIR SEX All four plaintiffs testified that they wished to marry their partners, and all four gave similar reasons. Zarrillo wishes

to marry Katami because marriage has a “special meaning” that would alter their relationships with family and others. Zarrillo

described daily struggles that arise because he is unable to marry Katami or refer to Katami as his husband. Tr 84:1-17. Zarrillo

described an instance when he and Katami went to a bank to open a joint account, and “it was certainly an awkward situation walking to the bank and saying, ‘My partner and I want to open a joint bank account,’ and hearing, you know, ‘Is it a business account? partnership?’ It would just be a lot easier to describe the A

situation —— might not make it less awkward for those individuals, but it would make it —— crystalize it more by being able to say * * * ‘My husband and I are here to open a bank account.’” Id. To

Katami, marriage to Zarrillo would solidify their relationship and provide them the foundation they seek to raise a family together, explaining that for them, “the timeline has always been marriage first, before family.” Tr 89:17-18.

Perry testified that marriage would provide her what she wants most in life: a stable relationship with Stier, the woman she loves and with whom she has built a life and a family. To Perry,

marriage would provide access to the language to describe her relationship with Stier: “I’m a 45-year-old woman. I have been in

love with a woman for 10 years and I don’t have a word to tell anybody about that.” Tr 154:20-23. Stier explained that marrying Tr

Perry would make them feel included “in the social fabric.”
Clearly marriage was not invented and support all this time because it had a 'special meaning'. Does it not stand to reason that if the person cannot at all clarify what that 'special meaning' is that they are not qualified psychologically to marry? Will it mean that gays will in fact be included "in the social fabric." ?  I doubt it seriously.

Thus homosexuals who have been barred from marriage given what marriage is a union between two people and also one that allowed for one to enter into the community through a recognized family. For the physical proof of the union of one man and one woman is in fact the child, something that cannot be mimicked by the homosexuals. Still, the homosexuals would like to deny this religious derivative of marriage. They would like to have bestowed upon them the propriety and legitimacy often many seek in marriage but without following the marital norms. There is an effort through 'gay-marriage' to transfer these norms to the homosexual while deny the roots of such legitimacy namely that God blessed the marriage and that children where to come from the marriage. The vague notions of what marriage is to the homosexuals is therefore an extremely fraudulent description of the value of marriage and it is improbable that the state can bestow this title upon the two since marriage has no origin with the state. It certainly has no origin in the gay culture. So here we are again, how exactly does the state marry two people?
To this day the states authority is seen as derived from God. To this day 'In God We Trust" is bolted to courtroom walls and placed on the currency. To this day the President of the United States swears on a Bible when he takes the oath of office. Yet, unlike the Church which stated flatly that it doesn't have the power or authority to ordain women as priest the state has taken it upon itself to marry and to marry two people of the same sex no less. What's more, the people given this authority concerning the fabric of society are some of the lowest public servants, namely the state assembly members and the state senators. It is worth thinking about whether those of us who absent mindedly voted for these public servants if we can at all remember if we had were ever voted in with the notion that they would be deciding what the terms of marriage can be in the state. These are people who are other wise working on bed bug legislation and taking photo ops at the local public school, not strolling through the groves in deep philosophical thought as to the nature of man in society.

Summarily it seems clear that the state cannot marry as it has no means to bind two people together unless one is considered property. The extrinsic quality of the homosexual and their relationships does indeed lead one to suspect that the nature of their relationships are merely extrinsic and in fact the nature of their relationship being abusive would can only lead one to suggest that a form of slavery without penalty has been enacted by the state in the 'gay-marraige'.

Saturday, February 5, 2011

The Declaration of Independance: The Spirit of America

The Unanimous Declaration
of the Thirteen United States of America

"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

If only one thing can be said of America, it is that she can take great esteem in this declaration written by the "Committee of Five" including John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Robert Livingston and Roger Sherman. Especially in Thomas Jefferson who wrote the original draft over a period of seventeen days. It is a sublime compliment of political treatise and English prose establishing for itself in each
a sovereign place of eruditional distinction. Thomas Jefferson certainly labored diligently and effectively to communicate to the most powerful head of state in his day, King George III, the colonist's every intention to emancipate themselves from English rule. Employing the most equitable and humane correspondence probably ever devised for the purpose of remonstrance and separation of relations.

If there is such a thing as a 'Dear John' letter, the Declaration of Independence is certainly not that. It is the "Dear George" letter, and exists on a plane far above the former in form and commitment as a ball point pen does from a quill dipped in the volunteered blood of her patriots. The Declaration of Independence was not just some well worded essay that would have enchanted the literary crowd of the New Yorker or the politophiles reading the New Republic or The Atlantic. It was a declaration of separation and thereby a declaration of war detailed and dispatched for and to the King of England. Every signer knew, it would entail the loss of thousands of lives and venture them further from any prospects of a homeostatic domesticity.

However, this document today is seldom brought to bear on the contest and disputes we convene today. When it comes to issues of God in America, "The Unanimous Declaration of The Thirteen United States of America" is never addressed. When it comes to natural law, this Declaration so equanimously written is ignored. How is it that this great treasure of these United States can be so removed from our political dialogue and national contentions? Clearly, the founding fathers incorporated God and natural law into the political thesis of what this country was all about? Certainly, no further would they have gone, had the outcome of this written expostulation turned out deleterious for the signers and all involved. Certainly, we would have no Constitution had the War of Independence gone horribly against our favor? How then has this most representative document of the American spirit found no home amongst us? Who is foreign to us? The authors of this political document? God and the recognition of natural law to these shores? Or, have we progressed into delusion and self absorption to the discredit of those who pioneered into the most strident realm of adversity in order to win our independence?

If the Constitution of the United States is the 'body' of American law, certainly the Declaration of Independence is her spirit.

Monday, January 24, 2011

The Fourth Estate Pleads The Fifth

As I sat here and watch the 38th annual March for Life that started with a mass at the Verizon center, (all the more reason to go back to Verizon and leave Cablevision) to the rally point in front of the Supreme Court building and in front of the Capital building and White House where there were hundreds of attendees I found that not one major news organization (I didn't get to check Fox News) even carried the story. It is really astonishing how public perception is shaped or as Noam Chomsky would say how consent is manufactured.

Perhaps it will be on later this evening but I found it eerie how not one station carried the story. President Obama made some public comment on the White House web page of how he "affirms a fundamental principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters." This is something he can affirm for the crime families of New York and around the world for what he is allowing to take place is murder. Murder, a capital crime is taking place here but people are looking the other way. Yet when it came to the pedophile scandal in the Church where exactly one murder was committed and that against a Fr. John Geoghan in prison there was a great cry of moral injustice. In fact, some were seeking to extend the legislatively imposed statute of limitations on pedophilia in order to get more convictions.

Roe V. Wade was a decision made in 1973, which was really tragic since the A-mode scan which can detect a fetal heart beat, cephalometry and placental localization was used in Europe, Britain, United Sates, Japan, China, USSR, Poland and Australia as fat back as the early sixties.
"The ability to recognise and confirm the presence of fetal cardiac action in early pregnancy was considered to be one of the most indispensible use of ultrasonography (and still is). "¹ It would appear that although these technological breakthroughs were making it more and more obvious that the fetus was indeed alive and human the Roe V. Wade decision was made with little or no input with regards to this scientific information. The use of these technologies actually deter any need for a 'theory of life' as stated in the Roe decision. In fact, the entire Roe decision was constituted without any technological input at all. While the Roe decision took issue with the Churches concept of 'quickening' it all together failed to take into consideration that indeed a fetal heart beat was fully accessible to the physician. How can the detection of a heartbeat, completely independent of the mother's not make the case that the human fetus was in fact (a) alive and (b) distinct from the mother? Nothing since chattel slavery in the United States could be a more willful ignorance to the bare facts of nature as the Roe decision in 1973. We are now at the point where 53 million lives have been taken and never before have we had at our disposal such advanced technological and scientific evidence that the human fetus is indeed alive and independent of the mother if even in a symbiotic relationship.

Yet while many liberal organizations bemoan the Supreme Court decision to allow corporations to unrestricted funding of a political candidate, in the Citizens United V. Federal Election Commission in 2008 and are trying to have it over turned, they see nothing wrong with legalizing abortion (and embryonic stem cell research) and having these atrocities funded by the government. The abortion issue is characterized by President Obama as an issue concerning "women’s health and reproductive freedom". It appears that a child is a health risk and detrimental to woman's health, no doubt under the premise that a woman's health could be jeopardized due to complications with the pregnancy. However, as Bishop Thomas J. Olmstead of Phoenix made clear when he revoked the Catholic status of St. Joseph's Hospital in the Diocese of Phoenix, abortion is not a remedy or treatment for any prevailing health condition a woman (or anyone else) might have. The expression "reproductive freedom" is actually a euphemism, replacing the 'freedom' to reproduce with a license to kill.

President Obama goes on to say, "I hope that we will recommit ourselves more broadly
to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights, the same
freedoms, and the same opportunities as our sons to fulfill their
Where, as if suffering from a god complex, he 'grants' the same 'rights, freedom and opportunities' to girls as he does to boys. Yet, he avoids the obvious reality that only girls can get pregnant and thereby converts a natural reality into a social injustice. All this time, President Obama and his liberal allies have painted this picture that a large social conspiracy was about. Conservatives and their kind were the cause of female and homosexual oppression. With this perception there is the idea that if only the Catholic Bishops were out of the way pedophiles would not exist to molest young boys, if only the Church was not in the way homosexuality would be completely tolerated and young homosexual men would not commit suicide. If only everyone purchase health insurance people would not suffer from cancer, Alzheimer's disease, the common cold or 'punished' with a baby they did not plan on having.

However, now it does not seem unjustified if many Catholics perceive a conspiracy amongst the liberal media elite. It seems, very similarly to the Roe decision made just as the technological means of establishing the human fetus a living human being was reaching a crescendo before the 1973 decision and was ignored, that the major media outlets have also deliberately ignored the staggering March for Life turn out that was right in front of the Supreme Court building in the heart of American politics, Washington D.C. At this point the conclusion has to be drawn not that the evidence for the right to life of the fetus is not present, it has been present since before 1973 but that the Pro Choice advocates want to have the 'right' to make the choice over whether that human fetus lives or dies and they refuse to extend that choice to the human fetus or anyone else. No different than a murderer or serial killer, the Pro Choice advocates want to maintain the only option available to them, murder, as they have no choice over the actual pregnancy for which the woman either is or is not experiencing. They are no different than an organized crime family who reserves murder as a contingency in a dilemma.

What became startingly and tragically clear in the investigation of the Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell who made millions killing many delivered babies through induced labor of women in their sixth, seventh and eight month of pregnancy then cutting into the back of their neck with a scissors and snipping their spinal cord was that he and others who perform abortions are hired specifically to insure that viability, the standard for life, was never an issue. He clearly understood his job as an abortionist was to eliminate any possibility of child living independently from the mother even when he or she could.

The Pro-life advocates which seem to always be in a debate with one rationalization after another, whether the fetus is a human child or not, at what stage of development is the human fetus able to live independent of it's mother or not (certainly a question that seems to have been answered with the first test tube babies) or whether the human fetus feels pain have all been mere tactics used by those who really have no interest in the life of the child at all. There are day time television shows which are nothing more than a series of paternity test to prove whether a certain man is the father of a woman's child. How then is it possible that after one sexual encounter with the woman that there is a "part of her' that has a genetic link to a man completely outside of her? Would that prove true of her hair tissue or tissue samples from her liver, lungs or kidneys? Absolutely not, yet although we have known from the sixties that the human fetus has an independent heart beat and we know today much about it 's unique DNA we are supposed to think of the human fetus as a mere extension of the mother, like an appendix with eyes and a heartbeat. Similarly to the pedophile scandal where there is a legitimate skepticism as to whether tort attorney Jeff Anderson and his advocates have any interest in his client/victims or if rather, the suffering of these children are only a means to a political and financial end. In the pedophile scandal in the Church there are certainly those that would like to see the Church politically and financially crippled. In the abortion debate there are those who perceive a woman's right to choose as the corner stone of a woman's political power. This push for independence, this high price for freedom like the American, French, Russian and Chinese revolutions amongst others, these all seem to come at the cost of human bloodshed and death. Yet unlike the one sacrifice of Christ, the deaths are interminable, they have become standard fare carried out daily. What's more, the freedom that the United States cherished so greatly, freedom of speech, freedom of the press has today, during the 38th annual March for Life proved muffled by those very advocates. Nothing is free, the press is certainly not free because today it has become clear that they are bought and paid for by the liberal sector of American politics, where "All The News That's Fit To Print" will like the lives of the unborn be chosen by a select few to encourage, propagate and establish a distinct political view. No different than the skewed coverage of the Pope's historic state visit to Great Britain which was distorted by CNN, BBC and other leading news agencies, that went so far as to air rehashed 'specials' about the pedophile scandal (as if no one else in the world had had these troubles and experiences) so removed from the visit itself. Simultaneously these same agencies will report on the decline of the American educational system and yet deliberately distort history in the making. What better way to make history come alive for Jr. high or high school students concerning the events of the reformation (the revolt), King Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon than the then current event of the Papal state visit?

The 38th March For Life was hardly covered to the extent it clearly earned given the number of people I witnessed on the only station affording it live coverage, EWTN. Even as I write this blog as late as 5:20 in the evening I can find an article only from the Washington Post, which incidentally is one of the few papers that actually has a religion section and editor. The other website to publish about the March For Life was the conservative journal, "Human Events" which had a magnificent take on this incredible media black out which even communist in Stalin era Soviet Union would have been proud.

There is no question that we live in a divide America. However, the good news suggest that the split is not evenly divided, with the thousands of mostly young people who showed up to the March For Life in Washington D.C. today. No matter what the media may not want to bring attention to they cannot deny the fact that quantity of young men and women that were in attendance on one of the coldest days of the year. Hallelujah! Still, it must be brought to the fore of our minds that the divide in media attention is so overt that there is now an organization that specializes in bringing this very fact to the attention of millions by staging an open protest against the left wing media. The "Tell The Truth Media Research Center" founded by Brent Bozell literally parks bill board advertisements in front of the leading news corporations around New York City and elsewhere. If this isn't a call for America to wake up that in fact we are in the midst of what can only be called a cold war than what would be? Certainly, the United States did not have such deep division in the media nor was there such a distrust of news organizations twenty years ago. In fact, there was a time when both the left and the right trusted the same media outlets. For the most part many people trusted figures like Walter Conkrite and Edward R. Murrow, today that is not the case. Today many people choose to watch either one news organize to the exclusion of the other or go out in search of news from what were considered non-news sources such as Comedy Central. The irony of this current event is that there isn't any one place to broadcast this division in news reporting.

During the President State Of The Union Address today several of the representatives have decided to 'sit together' even though they are from opposing parties. The gesture I am afraid falls way short of instilling in most any sense that cooperation between the two parties and those whom they represent is possible. In part because the left deliberately set out on an agenda of manipulating public opinion on issue such as gay rights and stem cell research and abortion. In most cases there has been little follow up amongst the people and where the propaganda failed the courts, particularly the ninth district courts of appeal stepped in to complete the effort. In the California proposition 8 debate, seven million people voted in favor of it but yet Judge Vaughn Walker, himself a homosexual, struck down this democratically chosen law to keep marriage between a man and a woman and reject "homosexual marriages'. As for the repeal of DADT, the military leadership, most but not all acted in accord to promote this change, yet it does not seem to have been as widely accepted as they may have hoped. For the most part it seems that the 'progressives' are in a minority yet they hold key places in government and the fourth estate by which they attempt to change and manipulate the democratic rule of governing America had professed before the world. What can not be doubted is that indeed many of the population are being maneuvered like cattle into the development of an America they have in no way chosen for themselves. This is the strange reality of America come clean. Have we ever been a free country?

¹Woo,Joseph Dr. A Short History of the Development of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1998-2001

Thursday, January 20, 2011

Friday, January 14, 2011

Liberal Media: All The News That Fits Their Political Agenda

It seems odd that of all the media that is out there in particular the liberal media that the cause of the shooting in Arizona was due to conservative punditry. It has nothing to do with first person shooter games or pot smoke or irreverent and disgusting morally eroding animation like Family Guy or Odd Jobs. It isn't pornography that should be curbed in any way because that is not leading to physical violence which is the one thing that liberals fear most. It is the Rush Limbaugh show.

This is the second time that the liberal media has taken the opportunity to exploit a tragedy and suffering of others. When it came to the pedophile scandal in the Church the same used the opportunity to attack their political opponents the Church. Never mind the fact that we have the simply minded way of perceiving that if a political figure gets hurt we think that the motives are political if a priest does the rape than we think that there is a moral falling in the the Church and we can therefore be critical on those grounds. We do not perceive in mass media however that the young man that shot Congresswoman Gifford had a direct encounter with the Congresswoman and may have had a affective response to his encounter which motivated his actions. Nor do we attack marijuana which many of the liberals espouse is supposedly so good for one. Nor do we look at the fact that we have a person who is so emotionally ill that his parents, friends and even teachers could tell. No, the problem is the Rush Limgaugh show. The problem is that Sarah Palin has cross hairs on a map because circles on a map mean an entirely different thing.

When we watch Peter Werherner debating Bill Press on C-Span's Washington Journal it seems clear that Bill Press is intent on making a case for the liberal Democrats at the expense of the shootings. In fact the common trait has been that these liberal Democrats have no affection at all for the victims, they are merely tools to further their political agenda. http://www.c-span.org/Events/Washington-Journal-for-Sunday-Jan-9/10737418805-3/

Bill Press says that 'violent talk produces, not always, violent actions". This is the problem that the liberals have it is their perception of violence perpetuating out of language because they hold that language in a way leads to the key reasons for action and belief. They believe that if you change the written definition of a psychiatric illness like homosexuality then the reality of the sexual behavior is amended. They have confused the ideas from the beginning and then reach a conclusion all of their own. Then on top of that they are only concerned with physical bodily harm because this is all that they have in their existence, their bodies which they idolize. What is violent talk? Who participates in it and why is it the only form of speech that the liberals are interested in curbing. What about Hip-Hop music there is plenty of violent talk involved in those arenas and yes their is plenty of violence that takes place but does talk of any kind produce actions? The homosexuals say that the teaching of the Church are what lead Tyler Clemente to jump off the bridge even though suicide is forbidden in Catholicism and they have no answer to those that are not homosexual who jump off the bridge. It is saying that people are somehow completely mechanistic, that because something is said that the person has no intrinsic bearing of their own like a religion that organizes how they behave. Yet the liberals spend most of their time trying to eliminate the intrinsic values of society and then blame the violence that they can encapsulate on the conservative talk show host. They do not blame Howard Stern who would actually send people out to aggravate others they blame and at the same time dismiss Jared Lee Lounghren as a "nut'. Violent talk produces violent actions perhaps in sick egotistical people but that is true of all things. It is shocking and terrible that of all the crimes committed in society to which few have anything to do with talk that we would now try to limit the freedom of speech not with television shows with lots of violent talk and depictions , not with the music industry that has lots of violent talk but with the Rush Limgaugh show, with the Bill O'Rielly show, how interesting how perfectly that suites these liberal democrats, how this Jared who was considered by his peers to be 'liberal pot-head' is now seen as the product of conservative talk radio. These liberals are quite disgusting.