In what is widely seen as a violent and horrid week in our nation's history one thing became increasingly clear: Liberals will tolerate, embrace and even advocate for violent, maniacal, and bloody killing that takes innocent life. They will do so especially if they believe it benefits them politically.
It was a tragic week in so many ways.
Starting with the still unexplained naked, raw aggression of one university student snuffing out 32 faculty and students on the campus of Virginia Tech, followed by copycat threats and even arrests across the nation, and it ended with one more lone gunman snuffing out the life of a hostage at NASA.
What was even more disturbing was exactly how far liberal democrat candidates for president would go to pander for a vote.
No reflective, thoughtful, or civilized person in America this week could dare to look upon the unwarranted bloodshed of the innocent and have even one ounce of tolerance for such actions. The trauma these events had on our collective psyche as a nation seemed to erode differences amongst people who see themselves as separated by partisan disagreement. For these few days the moral absolute of not shedding innocent blood, even the Old Testament biblical mandate of "Thou shall not commit murder", was easily agreed upon.
For Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards the answer is a shocking, "NO!"
These candidates refused to see what all of America could easily see that the taking of an innocent person's life - especially young people that have still so much to live for, so much to yet accomplish, so much to see, do and contribute to this world - is always morally evil.
They made speeches, sent out campaign letters, and blasted e-mail lists not 48 hours after the killings at Va. Tech that not only refused to call the violent taking of innocent life evil, but had the gall to insist upon voters making a statement in 2008 - by also embracing their beliefs.
Let me say that more clearly.
The three leading candidates for President for the Democratic Party want you to support their candidacy for President in 2008 because they believe you agree with them on the violent taking of innocent human life.
Edwards went so far as to say that the prevention of such violent massacres showed, "A hard right turn that is a stark reminder of why Democrats can not afford to lose the election of 2008."
They also very much oppose legislation that would seek to stem the tide of such violent killing. They all three side with the view that law abiding citizens should not have the right to carry firearms for their own protection, all the while knowing that criminals can, do, and will access guns through every imaginable illegal means. This week all three also spoke out in opposition to a federal law that would prevent massive, wide-scale violent assault upon children by means of other deadly weapons.
And when the nation's highest court found it unconstitutional for grown adults to kill children through the use of stab wounds to the head using scissors, knives, scalpels, and forks - Clinton, Obama, and Edwards couldn't get to a microphone fast enough to criticize the court's ruling, and personally give their stamp of approval to such procedures.
The way they justified these very public statements was to pawn it off on the mental state of the child's parents. Claiming that the parents should have the right to utilize such a murderous procedure because of the mental pain and anguish it would cause for the parents to continue to be parents of said child. But does this now mean that a child loses its right to live, just because their parents go insane? Mommy goes crazy - you die.
The candidates also attempted to use the laughable argument that such a decision should be allowed to be made between the parent of the child and a local doctor. Evidently the child can be denied constitutional protection to their life if a parent and doctor so agree. And for the record the American Medical Association has publicly stated that such a procedure is never medically necessary.
At one particular medical clinic where such decisions are made in the metro New York area (Englewood, New Jersey), it was estimated on the day of the court's decision that the law would save roughly 1500 children's lives in the next twelve months alone. By last count there are dozens of such clinics in the metro New York City area. At a minimum count that's 360,000 lives saved every twelve months in only one American city.
One thing the candidates did not do in embracing and even demanding for the continuing of such violent killing - was explain the details. The child is killed by the sharp stab wound to the brain, then just to really make sure that the kill has occurred the "doctors" use forceps or some other squeezing device to mash the cranial material (brains, skull, etc.) into mush. Then - to really, really, really make sure the child is really dead - they suction out the brains and toss the body, sometimes with its deflated head still attached into the dumpster.
This massacre does not happen to children at the tip of a Glock 19 or a 22 Caliber, but there is no medical doubt that the method used to butcher these children inflicts every bit as much pain. There are horrific stories of these children struggling violently as the cold steel penetrates the base of the skull.
In reality, this week should be a mixed week of emotions. Overwhelming sadness at the eternal loss of 33 innocent people at the hands of two suicidal killers on one hand, and a small bit of hope at the prospect of now ending the cruel and torture based method of killing unwanted children on the other.
It is a sad and tragic reality that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards do not want more citizens to be empowered to protect themselves from violent massacre, but the fact that they also have publicly opposed legislation that would protect even innocent children from such slaughter with open and avowed hostility is worse.
And worst of all they believe you will vote for them because of it...