I don’t mean to sound callous, but it’s about time.
Late last week the House of Representatives, who represent no one anymore, ramrodded a Bill through the House to effectively mandate tracking devices for people with mental impairments. They broke their own rules and cancelled all debate – silencing any detractors to push this through. Before anyone has a chance to complain, the Bill will be rushed through and Senate and quickly signed into law by Obama. And it’s much worse than it sounds.
Complaints are mounting over the humane treatment of inmates being put to death by lethal injection. It seems the knock-out drug does not do an adequate job, leaving some to struggle and writhe on the gurney for extended periods. This can all be solved, cheaply, efficiently and effectively by bringing back the tried and true firing squad, which works every time.
by: the Common Constitutionalist
If I know Massachusetts, and I do, I’m going to guess that Dzhokar Tsarnaev will not receive the death penalty but will instead get life without chance of parole.
A poll released in late March showed that only 27% of residents in the city of Boston oppose putting Tsarnaev to death. Frankly, I’m surprised it’s so high considering how out of control liberal Boston is. Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth “Fauxcahontas” Warren says she is strongly opposed to capital punishment, even in this case. Big Surprise.
We’ve all heard the arguments against capital punishment – that it is not deterrence against murder or violent crime, and that’s probably true – partly because most criminals simply believe that even if they are sentenced, they will probably be long dead before the ridiculous appeals process is exhausted. That and they are killers, not rocket scientists. No one ever thinks they will be caught.
We’ve heard the “cruel and unusual” arguments and that it is just retribution or a revenge killing, if you will, which is not justice. There’s the putting to death of an innocent – cases where death row inmates have in fact been freed due to new evidence or forensic techniques. Of course, this doesn’t apply to confessed bomber Tsarnaev.
So why put anyone to death. For one reason – Recidivism. One can state emphatically that once a cold blooded killer is put to death, you can be assured he or she won’t be doing that or anything else again.
by: the Common Constitutionalist
A few weeks ago I wrote an article entitled “Grim Reaper on Wheels”. It was regarding the Netherlands increased tolerance and actual promotion of non-voluntary euthanasia.
Holland has sanctioned six national “Roving Death Squads” who travel the countryside in search of candidates that “request” suicide assistance. It started out as a voluntary program but government progressive eugenicists seized the opportunity to expand the “assisted suicide” program into a quality of life program. Ezekiel Emanuel would be proud.
In other words, if one is deemed to be saddled with a poor quality of life such as severe mental retardation, dementia or disease, one would expect a visit from the “Roving Death Squad”.
After all, it’s neither compassionate nor fair to expect one to live a life of pain and anguish. It’s for your own good and the good of society. As I stated in the Grim Reaper article, this is how it started in the Nazi regime.
And as is typical of Europe; it’s progressive monkey see, monkey do. Other countries are adopting this compassionate practice.
So I found it ironic when last week I discovered an article by Lachlan Markay entitled, “European Union Financing Efforts to End Death Penalty in U.S.”. What?
I absolutely agree with Ron Paul. Shut down the Federal Reserve. Woodrow Wilson created it. I need to consider nothing more. Anything enacted by the Wilson administration is de facto, bad for the country.
Mr. Paul has stated he is firmly pro-life. I believe him. He also says it is not the purview of the Federal Government. The congressman believes life begins at conception but reluctantly says it is a States Rights issue, citing the Tenth Amendment.
I wasn’t aware that the murder of innocents was an issue at all. Who but a psycho would be in favor of murdering innocent people? If you believe life begins at conception, and when else would it begin, you can’t also believe that a State has the right to pass it’s own law condoning murder. It’s kind of a Ten Commandment issue, which trumps even our Constitution.
Ron Paul admits he was pro-death penalty & is now opposed to the death penalty, chiefly out of fear than an innocent person may be sentenced to death.I am pro-death penalty personally. I have yet to hear a compelling argument against it. Could a mistake be made? Absolutely! Humans are not perfect. Overwhelmingly the evidence against a death row inmate is so compelling as to prevent the mistake. Many have said my position is inconsistent. How could anyone be pro-life & pro-death penalty? What about the whole, “Thou shall not murder [kill]”? Abortion is the taking of an innocent life. The death penalty is not.
I agree with Paul, that illegal immigration should be attacked economically first. Stop all federal funding for illegals. No welfare, food stamps, free hospital care, etc. If you give things away, you’ll have more people lining up for the giveaways. Take away the incentive to stay here & they’ll leave.
He is against amnesty. I agree with that.
He does not support deportation. I support deportation. The Congressmen stated, “Sending twelve to fifteen million illegals home–isn’t going to happen and shouldn’t happen”. I disagree. By taking away the financial incentives, that number would be reduced greatly.
This is the biggie. I am not at all a fan of Ron Paul’s foreign policy. It’s not only flawed, but also dangerous. I concur that troops should come home, but not for the same reasons. I also think our troops should leave Afghanistan immediately.
He states, “There really is nothing for us to win in Afghanistan. Our mission has morphed from apprehending those who attacked us, to apprehending those who threaten or dislike us for invading their country, to remaking an entire political system and even a culture … This is an expensive, bloody, endless exercise in futility. Not everyone is willing to admit this just yet. But every second they spend in denial has real costs in lives and livelihoods … Many of us can agree on one thing, however. Our military spending in general has grown way out of control.”
I agree with him that most of the conflicts we’ve become entangled in are useless and unconstitutional. If however, the cause is Constitutionally justified, the cost should be immaterial. I hope he would agree.
Regardless of my agreement with him on a lot of domestic spending issues, his isolationism and stance on Iran and Israel absolutely disqualifies him for any consideration as the nominee.
While the President and Congress, together, control domestic issues, foreign policy is much more the authority of the Executive Branch and the Commander in Chief.
I could agree with Ron Paul’s stance on every domestic issue, but when I cannot trust the judgment of our Commander in Chief, he is eliminated from consideration, period.