Jun 3, 2016

The damage to human life that bleeding hearts and callous politicians cause


Criminals like this monster is why the death penalty should not be abolished, because some people cannot be rehabilitated. No appeal should be allowed after such unremorseful callous behavior.

This man insults those who survive abuse. Not all survivors abuse others; Twisted depraved people do it because that is who they are.


And this video illustrates what lax politicians like Governor Brown and stupid laws like Prop 47 and excusing behavior that is harmful to others leads to; disrespect for human life and the law and a sense of entitlement. This did not happen in California but its similar to senseless violence and over reaction we see every day, locally, regionally and nationally.


  1. Just curious, how do you reconcile that position with your faith? The Church's position is well known, and Pope Francis has reaffirmed the death penalty is "inadmissible, no matter how serious the crime committed. It is an offense against the inviolability of life and the dignity of the human person, which contradicts God's plan for man and society, and his merciful justice, and impedes the penalty from fulfilling any just objective. It does not render justice to the victims, but rather fosters vengeance."

    1. Good question Will. I reconcile it because I am not a follower of Pope Francis or the Catholic institution. After 10 years plus of being a willing convert, a devoted Catholic, someone who thought I wanted to be ordained by the Catholic institution I left. God would not judge me for standing up to evil, anymore than he would judge me for caring for an atheist, a divorcee, someone gay or someone trannsexual.

      I still identify as Christian, I just don't buy into cookie cutter solutions for all.

      Now, I am curious. was that a question from a fellow Catholic, Christian or one of the rare times Christian faith is convenient my quoted because the death penalty is something you do not agree with, and are not religious.

    2. That question was from an atheist, raised Catholic. I was purely curious. I assumed you were Catholic from your posts about Father Freed, but I didn't read each in detail, and maybe you didn't mention it there anyhow.

      FWIW, I'm an atheist against the death penalty. I would be OK with it if guilt was known with certainty (99% certainty), but I believe those situations are quite rare. Meanwhile, I believe faulty perception and corrupt testimony are far more common than people realize, which puts evil people, who are nonetheless innocent of murder, onto death row.

      I don't have a doctrine of forgiveness, otherwise I would be 100% against the death penalty on straight moral grounds. I forgive people, sure, but I don't have a supernatural calling to forgive under all circumstances. I don't believe this leads to a less joyful life or subconscious baggage that must plague a person their whole life.

  2. John, I wish you well on you're spiritual journey. Sincerely and I hope you know that.

    Help me follow your thinking here John. How are these two news stories about bleeding hearts or calous politicians?

    Your fundamental point might be this. There is a flaw in our policy on criminal justice. These people who have been convicted by a jury of their peers of a crime so heinous are beyond rehabilitation and we should have no problem putting them to death.

    OK. My point as a bleeding heart liberal would have nothing to do with the character of the individual who committed the crime. I would however want to insure that this government which has an important and influential role in the lives of individuals does treat all of us with equal justice. Even convicted criminals have rights as citizens and, there is copious information that right now the economic, not to mention the social and political deck is stacked against those who often end up on the wrong side of the law.

    In other words, John, it's complicated. What I'm not saying is that there are not bad people who have done heinous things who should be punished to the full extent of the law.

    But no, these two examples in no way demonstrate that either bleeding heart (liberals) or politicians are responsible for damaging human life. What about our bloated criminal justice system which is scewed not only by the mind-numbing number of prisoners per-capita compared to other countries, but also by the mind-numbing racial disparity when compared to our society at large.

    What about the damage lives of those that other countries have found a way to not imprison. I don't think the fundamental problem is our lax criminal justice system. There is something else fundamentally wrong and I hope we start addressing these root problems and begin to break up America's prison-industrial system.

    Don't you? Or is the rate of 750 prisoners per 100,000 people about right?


  3. Jon, the short answers :that most liberals believe in rehabilitation and are looking for some excuse to explain behavior. I feel some people are evil, they make choices and actions.

    The sense of entitlement in the second video. The guy had a credit card that allegedly did not belong to him. He beat a clerk causing major injury because the clerk did the right thing.

    Laws like Prop 47 liberals, especially some working in the criminal justice system, others impacting the passage of laws, have in the last 30 years of so encouraged disrespect of the law, attacking police and authority.

    Take Bernie Sanders protestors. Why such violence? Can't they peacefully protest?

    No one in life is entitled to something for free. You have to work or contribute in some way. Welfare, social services were intended to help people through rough times, not become a lifestyle. That someone else is responsible for your life, with no effort on your part, is a liberal attitude.

  4. "Take Bernie Sanders protestors. Why such violence?"

    Absolutely. This was wrong. I never would have been a part of such protests. I would have argued against it if I had been. I completely condemn it now.

    Michael Medved brought this to my attention. Any liberal worth his or her salt will denounce this violence. One of the ones who didn't and even seemed to encourage it (Vox editor - see a Twitchy thread). Michael Medved decried both candidates as illiberal and authoritarian for not having condemned it by the time he went to the air. They both have, and not because they want to win an election John, because violence is wrong and 95% of liberals and/or Democrats do not want to lower ourselves to the type of hatred and/or fear of others that Trump himself is encouraging.

    Trump so far is only using words, those that instigated violence against Trump supporters were absolutely wrong and I hope are prosecuted for their crimes and/or horrible behavior.

    Having said all that John this "That someone else is responsible for your life, with no effort on your part, is a liberal attitude." is your take on liberalism. I hope you would allow for my take on liberalism. Liberals understand that an individuals actions will have the greatest influence on the outcome of his or her life. Liberals and conservatives should be able to agree on this. What I would argue a liberal would add is we understand that not all of us are dealt the same hand of cards. Our society cannot allow those born with less or those that make bad decisions to perish because of events sometimes within their control, sometimes not.

    Conservatives and the right wing have been spinning a yarn about self-responsibility. However, if you look at the results since the 1970s, the real reason for their yarn becomes increasingly clear.

    From unions, to social safety nets, to corporate welfare, to the precipitous decline in top marginal tax rates, to aggressive foreign policy padding the pockets of many donors, the conservatives the Reagan-inspired rhetoric they weave was successful in re-distributing wealth to the top 10%.

    What is so frustrating to liberals like me is that they did this while arguing it was the left who was in the business of wealth re-distribution.

    So back to my question John, does America have 7.5 times the amount of evil people in it that Europe does? (please see the link I provided) What gives?

    Shouldn't we be working to reduce this number instead of increasing it? That would be one of the most important metrics of the political revolution Bernie is talking about.

  5. Jon, you and I will disagree on things :) but this is a good discussion. However, I am not spending time clicking on a link and statistics about "evil". Other than a couple of court posts, and any newsworthy items, I intend to relax and work on my business projects.

    I may not be a Socialist but I do think Bernie is a better nominee for the Democrats and he is bringing the same passion to the Democratic party that Trump is to the Republican party.

  6. "I am not spending time clicking on a link and statistics about "evil"."

    Huh? Evil? I just spent this am trying to tell you this isn't about good and evil but about policy. This isn't about "bleeding hearts" or the callousness of politicians.

    This isn't about judging a person's character as I think we all can agree (at least if you want to win elections in America, thank God!) judging character should be left to a higher being or at the very least not to us humans.

    Send people to prison for their illegal actions, not their character, on this I think (or is it hope) we agree .

    So, not statistics about "evil" but about policy. Since you don't have time, I'll narrate the link for you.

    It is a graph of the highest per-capital incarceration rates. It represents data from this* page. On it you can see that only the Seychelles has a higher per capita incarceration rate in the entire world and that we are about 7 times the rate of countries a "socialist" like Bernie would try to emulate - Western European democratic socialism.

    How high would that number go before you think we would have too many people incarcerated? It is currently at 700 people incarcerated per 100,000 population (as a specific example Germany is 78 people per 100,000).

    If we have that many bad people in America, what does that say about us compared to say, Germany. Is it possible that there is something else going on here and that incarceration is not only a function of an individual's character?

    This is what liberals are going on about.

    Not this "That someone else is responsible for your life, with no effort on your part, is a liberal attitude."