- Posted by Christopher Estep on April 7, 2008
Neal Boortz has a very good and succinct column explaining what "rights" actually means and how it's defined in the constitution.
It's so short, I can't even quote it without losing its meaning. Go take a look, seriously.
- Posted by Christopher Estep on February 1, 2008
There's a report saying that Al Qaeda uses mentally disabled women as suicide bombers.
That's nothing. Democrats use them for senators and presidential candidates.
(tip to Michelle Malkin)
- Posted by Christopher Estep on January 7, 2008
Oral arguments were heard this morning and the usual suspects said the usual things.
Justice Stevens, the old feeb, showed his senility with the following:
"I'm terribly troubled by the fact that the second drug seems to cause all risk of excruciating pain," Justice John Paul Stevens said.
And I'm terribly troubled that the Senate let this waste of oxygen on the bench! All I can think of is Admiral Stockdale in 1992 insanely shouting "Gridlock!" in the 1992 Veep debates.
Someone needs to tell Grandpa Simpson Stevens that the second drug just paralyzes them. It doesn't cause any pain and it doesn't cause "all risk of excruciating pain" whatever the heck that is supposed to mean. The second drug is at issue is because IF they are in pain, they can't cry out. Where's Jack Kevorkian when you need him? Sheesh!
Justice Scalia injected some wisdom that is a "well, duh!" to anyone who can read (except liberals):
"There is no painless requirement [in the Constitution]"
And of course, the failure of Bush 41's presidency, Justice Souter, gave his Rodney King "can't we all get along" statement:
Justice David Souter urged his colleagues to take the time necessary to issue a definitive decision about the three-drug method in this case, even if it means sending the case back to Kentucky for more study by courts there.
Scalia, however, said such a move would mean "a national cessation of executions. We're looking at years. We wouldn't want that to happen."
No, WE wouldn't, Justice Scalia. But your liberal courtmates and commucrats throughout the country want precisely that to happen. And that's why you're even looking at this issue instead of laughing it off like you should.
- Posted by Christopher Estep on January 7, 2008
The death penalty in America has a long and varied history. First it was legal. Then it wasn't. Then it was. Of course, this back and forth routine is courtesy of our Supreme Court who likes to redefine terms as they go so they can legislate from the bench.
Thankfully, it currently is legal. But if you listen to the media and death penalty opponents, you would think that it was about to change. The SCOTUS is once again revisiting whether a particular method of execution is "cruel and unusual" such that it violates the constitution. And what method is Lethal injection.
Now before you get your panties in a wad, it would benefit you to read more detail about what they're going to examine. Barring that, I've read it for you. That's why I'm here, to seperate the crap from the corn.
At first glance, one sees a headline such as the above link which says, "Supreme Court to hear case on constitutionality of lethal injection" and you would conclude that it's an examination of the death penalty or rather an erosion of it. This is simply not the case. As I said, that's why I'm here.
What is at issue is the final component of the 3-drug cocktail that is used to execute the scumbag, potassium chloride. KCl is said to be extremely painful, which is why they are given a barbituate to sedate the scumbag before we whack him. The whiny, bleeding-heart lawyers who live off the teet of the anti-execution cult are saying that if the anesthesia doesn't work and the paralytic drug (part 2 of the cocktail) does work, then the murdering puke will be in excruciating pain and won't be able to even cry out.
Personally, I see that as a benefit. Why should we have to hear him scream in pain and beg for mercy like his victims? What I think is cruel is allowing someone guilty of a crime so heinous that we can no longer tolerate his existence to pass from this life without society meting out at least a measure of the pain he caused his victims. But I digress.
The bleeding-heart lawyers argue that the barbituate is enough to execute so the KCl shouldn't even be used. So what can happen? The SCOTUS can rule that KCl is cruel and then the states can just use other drugs or stronger barbituates. Whatever works, as long as he's dead.
So, is the death penalty on trial? Not for a second. The worst thing that could happen (with this court) is that states have to find a new way to whack murderers. No big deal.
I prefer the electric chair myself. Less yappin' and more zappin!!
- Posted by Christopher Estep on December 10, 2007
Michael Vick was sentenced today:
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) -- Michael Vick was sentenced to 23 months in prison Monday for his role in a dogfighting conspiracy that involved gambling and killing pit bulls that did not perform up to expectations.
Before you think that this is a story about how awful it is that Vick should get almost 2 years for his dogfighting crimes, think again. The inequity of justice isn't for celebrities, it's for women.
It's very saddening (and enraging) to me that a person can kill dogs and get 23 months in prison, not because of the killings, but because of the way he killed them. The case isn't about life and animals' rights, it's about cruelty. But what I'm forced to wonder is why is it that there is so much outrage because of what happened to Vick's dogs, but the world remains silent about the oppression of women in Muslim societies.
Just a few weeks ago there were stories about a Muslim cleric giving advice on how to beat your wife. It's "accepted" (by the men) and accepted (by women who have no choice) that if you're a woman in a Muslim country, you're going to be treated worse than an American house pet and the punishment for abuse is nonexistent.
Amnesty International and other left-wing organizations like to talk about how awful we are in the USA because we have the death penalty for crimes but they are largely silent on the cultural normality of women abuse in Muslim society. The tragedy isn't just that Muslim women are oppressed beyond all reason, and they certainly are. The tragedy is that for no other reason than to advance their own personal agenda of self-loathing and seeking the praise of anyone who hates America, these women are left to suffer and die.
Huckabee says a long time ago that he thinks that homosexuality is a problem and the media goes nuts. Ahmed-dinner-jacket denies that homosexuality exists in Iran (and he kills gays every day to try to make that statement true) and all you hear from the media is crickets.
The communist left of this country (aka Democrats) and their willing sycophants in the main stream media are guilty by inaction for every homosexual that or woman that is killed in a Muslim country. It is criminal negligence that they can't be tried for but should be ashamed of. The blood of untold innocents are on their hands for no other reason than they want to befriend anyone who hates America.
11Alive.com - Vick Sentenced to 23 Months in Prison
