OctoberBaby

OctoberBaby

Friday, July 2, 2010

New York Times Modernist Homosexual Mentality Unsafe For America

http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=hudson_upcoming_events&id=773
Gaberial Schonfeld spoke in May about his new book Necessary Secrets: National Security, the Media, and the Rule of Law. He explains how on several occasions the New York Times as well as other media sources have worked with National Security Employees or "leakers" which produced great losses for American security and defense.

Here, I refer to it as a homosexual mind set because of the famous ranting of openly gay congressman Barney Frank who went on a Kruschev like tantrum begging what he thought to be an unanswerable if not rhetorical question of how homosexual marriage could possibly effect the lives of their heterosexual neighbors. When in fact, any person in their sound mind, the subconscious mind, could tell you that trends and common acceptance of customs are perpetuated by the masses for the greater good of social cohesion and the avoidance of ostracism. The irony of course being the homosexual's exploitation of this interdependency amongst people in which they demand to be recognized as equal and accepted in community but foresake and hold has a trivial issue the long standing adherence to natural law the people they want to live openly amongst cherish. Further they claim that their lives lived outside of the closet, no differently than it was lived inside of the closet will have no effect on America's standards of social and moral behavior. The shadows and the phantasies of the dark and cramped closet are now to be performed without moral inhibition in the conscious light of day. When in fact the only thing normal about homosexual behaviour is their demonstrative psychosis which blinds them from comprehending how the human behavior of one influences the human behavior of others and yet every rule of social acceptance is predicated on this phenomenon.

More specifically, the recorded seminar above has an introduction from General Haydon, former CIA director. He expresses what he rightly percieves as the communal responsibility of journalist and how their actions can jeopardize national security in contrast to their self declared role of protecting Americans from a government run amok. There is this ever present balance between an informed public and national security which publications like the New York Times ignore.

The traditional role of the press as the fourth estates comes into question as many roles have changed in this era of globalization. Much in the same way the fulcrum of pressure that ordinarily kept people out of bankruptcy has diminished to the point where bankruptcy is now nothing more than a financial strategy most everyone is willing to employ. Today the question arises as to whether the press is really a counter balance to the three branches of government as it has consistently argued in decades past has been the preeminent legitimization for not disclosing their confidential sources or are they merely an agency complict in a crime which may have national security repercusions far into the future they could never have foreseen.

Leaks when carried out by government intelligence officials are crimes. Are the news professionals reporting the story they received from them complicit in this crime?

In the Catholic Church Sex Scandal of 2010, the New York Times let loose a barrage of defamatory articles with legal cases mostly supplied by Jeff Anderson the prosecuting attorney against the Church. What then was the justification for essentially leasing their circulation to an attorney who was currently prosecuting the case? The Church is not government so it could not be said to be performing this very biased attacks for the sake of National Security. Nor can the Church be said to be directly involved with the New York Times in any way. However, it still lent out it's circulation to an attorney who was literally in the middle of his prosecution. Why, and what should the Federal Government or the State government fear (as they attempted to defaming the current New York State Governor) from the New York Times selling out its circulation? The answer is simple, what propagandist would not like to have access to the The New York Times readership? Well certainly a tremendous amount of unflattering things can be said against several agencies that serve Americas' interests. The C.I.A. ,N.S.A, the United States Military any one of which could have it's past files and action regurgitated upon an unsuspecting public blasting controversial and shrouded activities throughout the fifties, sixties and seventies. Had these agencies existed as long as the Church it is quite possible that they would go back hundreds and even thousands of years of independently concluded "wrong doings". Looking at events in the past through the prism of today's secular democracy which currently perceives two men marrying as a civil right. It becomes clear that what was initially perceived as an unbiased public service to keep the public in formed for the sake of democracy can alternately be refitted to be used on the offensive. The shield of confidentiality protecting their source which they so zealously preserve for themselves applies in the Church Sex Scandal only so far as their publishing credibility is concerned yet unless the source is disclosed, it can verily be anyone with an interest in destablizing Church or the United States for that matter, including Al Qaeda.

Mr. Schoenfeld argues that the state has a right to keep some of it's secrets secret in the interest of national security to which no one would argue, however he goes one step further and question what civic responsibility the press have even if they come across issues of national security. Returning to Congressman Franks temper tantrum for a moment, what social responsibility do Americans owe one another? The Empire State Building refused to honor the Mother Teresa in lights this year but if the Empire State Building would to be hit with a plane similar to the Twin Towers, would Catholics in the vicinity be justified in not helping the victims? Are we one nation under God during war and sudden tragedy but independent of one another during all other times? Is it not the essence of psychological maturity when one commits to sharing in the social enviornment of another even if he or she does not particularly enjoy it but instead recognizes an inteterdendent solidarity amongst all when the waif of cigerette smoke and the sound of music cannot be avioded but also need not be xenophobically disdained? Certainly were a bomb to explode in the middle of a crowded Manhattan street it's only criteria for whom it will effect would be it's blast radius. With in the radius of this bomb it would not matter who was Catholic, Jewish, Muslim or atheist.

At the same time does not the Church and the State have the right to reserve judgement on how they respond to incidents within their respective domains as a legitimate internal decision making process? Similarly, the editorial decision of the Times are exclusively reserved by them they Times does not solicit the opinion of any other body as to what it should print. This is also an internal decision making process which they themselves treat as private if not secret.
Yet the Vatican and the United States are neither private or necessarily act in secret, they are soverign, neither are a private 'buisness' to wit liabilities can be claimed as if each and every incident which occurs right outside their doors can be litigated as a simple slip and fall case.
Major Nisan Hidal, the tradey of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans or even the British Petrolem oil spill can be readily construed as federal government lapses but then so can the Vietnamn War and all other actions the Executive and legislative branch involves itself. Do we hold the state responsible for the actions of it's adversaries as well, for all the cases of slip and fall which are deliberate frauds?

Now the Catholic Church faces a Supreme Court trial. Yet it faces the trial under the provincial laws of Oregon. In Oregon, the Bishops are seen as "employees' of the The Holy See and the priest are seen as "employees" of the Bishops. This false nomenclature or mercantile transposition of a mercantile relatedness does not suite the relationship of the Church as much as it does a shopping mall. Certainly, there has to be some consideration for States, Multi-nationals and the Church, which in part may explain why international bodies like the U.N. are in New York and not Oregon. One wonders were the president of Iran to visit an embassy in Oregon (or for whatever reason he might be there) would they arrest him under similar statutes?

This questionable judgement when it comes to more complex organisations like the Church brings into question whether a change of venue is warranted, since it seems that only under Oregon State can the Bishops be viewed in this light. Are congressmen employees of the State, to the point where they merely carry out the wishes of the state for pay? Are Colonels employees of the military, does their paycheck reflect a reasonable compensation for what they do? Perhaps in fact this is the mentality that has swept America which is why Major Nisan Hidal was allowed to be promoted with out any qualms that an actively faithful Muslim man was working so closely with American troops set to depart to Afghanistan and effectively neutralize as many of his fellow Muslims as they saw fit. This again is Barney Franks homosexual mind set where by one fails to intuit how ones actions effects an other's. The homosexual mind set, or 'gay', actively excludes the intuitive reality or perhaps what was formerly known in the ancient world as 'ether' or perhaps 'love'. It attempts in its psychologically deranged defensive posture to ignore emotions, what one feels, and the entire gamut of subconscious reality which can be better learned in a heterosexual relationship. The immediately apprehend truths that do not need to be extrapolated into conscious debate which few have words to express because here to fore they were taken as intuitive, axiomatic and self evident truths. Only men and women can marry, the Church is not a mercantile business and one can not transpose that relationship upon them any more than they can upon the lawyer/client relationship, the doctor/patient relationship or the penitent/confessor relationship. While these fiduciary relationships imply money as the paramount interest they more accurately reflect the true application of human rights, the right to private council. Yet we have seen the United States succumb to the 'business of America is business" model applied to all walks of life. Hospitals were run as if they were factories by HMO's(Health Medical Organizations), war in Iraq was surmised to be identical to the liberation of France in 1945, entire baseball teams were classified as a "product' on the field all in the inescapable reality of having only economic primacy and subsequently the mercantile paradigm as the sole reason for being which could be applied. Even beef and poultry farms were operated at un Godly rates of reproduction, life and slaughter, with slaughter houses killing up to 5000 cattle a day, injecting them with Bovine Growth Hormones to keep their meat as lean as chicken. Only to be slowed down by Mad Cow disease because they were feed dead cats and dogs presumably as a means to cut the cost of feeding them. This lead to a suspension of importation of American Beef by the Japanese.

The homosexual mindset as proved out by the New York Times, the Associated Press and Reuters, not to mention Time magazine. Harbors the notion that one can print things irresponsibly, they treat great epochs of European history as mere foot notes, the Crusades, the Inquisition and simply hope that what most have associated with the reality about these events, no matter how vague, will suffice to garner the animosity of the reader against the Church much in the way a screen writer attempts to influence the emotions of the movie watcher, with little regard to historical accuracy.

What the Church needs now is a metaphysical change of venue. Currently Oregon has dictated how it will perceive the Church and it has chosen to perceive the Church as a "private" entity like a bank, filled with employees who answer to the Pope and the Holy See as a corporate headquarters. The irony is not lost at all in fact that for decades the United States has abide by a policy of 'separation of Church and State'. This speaks exclusively to the Catholic Church and not nearly or at all to Protestantism, which does not have a universal Church, or one body, the organization of which RICO statues have been seen appropriate to apply in the Church scandal, for if there is only one body and one head, certainly it can be held accountable for the actions of all it's participants. Rather, only the clergy or "employees" are to be held responsible and not the parishioners. This then brings into question why would any mercantile organizations be barred from the worlds largest capitalist country? Who then is the Church in this separation and why are they separated? Has the separation of Church and State just dissolved?

Certainly an organized body, a person, has the right to present itself in court under the guise of their own self perceived identity. No one has to go into a trial under the characterization of the plantiff. Where that not true, how would a fair trial be possible? African-Americans in 1935 Alabama would thus be characterized as unintelligent, shiftless "internal problems" whenever they went to court from the very beginning and that has historically been the case. Even to the point where animals were allowed to testify against them, a horse would be summoned to stomp it's hooves twice for "yes" and once for "no". The trial would commence with the defendant attempting first to plead his way out of the psychotic perceptions of the plaintiff. This has dangerous implications in this era of terrorism and terror trials.

In the end one might suspect that we are witnessing a new dark ages in the United States and Western civilization where people are content to lie or perceive others as they see fit rather than to adhere to logic and reason. What are human rights, are they rights a man has under God, or are they rights men bestow bilaterally amongst themselves? Then again, what are human wrongs and when can you deduce that the moral fiber of a country has been removed. Is it not when natural law is devalued? Is it not when reason and logic are replaced with ambition and political motives? Is it not when truth is barred from legal proceeding and medical diagnosis. In the famous words of Pontius Pilate, "What is truth?". Will America succumb to a dark age of lies in order to shape it self into prefabricated state drawn from the delusional fantasies of it's own moral imagination, or will we respect the truth of God and admit that man is bereft without Him? Much of the truth can be known but comprehensive understanding through the eyes of mature men who can hold the threads of liberty, justice and truth in hands of sincere humanitarianism, abide by natural law and reason with the logos of divine love.

No comments: