Marxist, Obama Supporting Judge, Strikes Death Penalty
Jun 14, 2008 Political
Judge James Burge of Ohio has ruled that the state’s method of executing prisoners violates the Constitution because two of the three drugs used cause pain to the person getting them. I am no judge but the Constitution does not say that punishment should be pain free. It only says that it may not be cruel and unusual.
Amendment VIII:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. [emphasis mine]
Under this judge’s interpretation we would not be allowed to make criminals in jail do any strenuous work (like being on the chain gang) because they will have sore muscles when they are done and God forbid we cause them any pain. As far as someone being put to death, what does it matter? They have a few seconds of pain and they drift off to la la land and never wake up. I am pretty sure that for most of the murderers on death row, this is a hell of a lot more humane then how they took the lives of their victims.
We have established that the Constitution does not protect against pain, only against inflicting cruel and unusual punishment. Once pain is out of the equation we have the injection of drugs. We give needles every day and we inject medications every day. The people to whom we do this have not been convicted of anything so they are not being punished. No, we do this because it is the common way of giving certain kinds of medication and of starting IVs and drawing blood. Therefore, it is neither cruel nor is it unusual.
Judge Burge has this entirely wrong but being wrong about the Constitution should not surprise anyone when one views the picture of the judge. The judge looks like Satan without the horns and the wall behind him has a picture of Ernesto “Che” Guevara an Argentine Marxist revolutionary who was a brutal killer and who has become the icon for leftist movements. On the wall next to Che is a picture of Barack Hopey Obama. This is the second published photo I have seen where an Obambi supporter placed it next to Che which seems to be the common thread among his supporters. One was at an Obama campaign office and now this one in the judge’s office. [The picture can be viewed at the linked source]
To Socialists (Marxism is a form of Socialism) like Burge, Che, and Obama, the Constitution is a living document that can be bent and reshaped to fit just about any need. They have no concern for the basis of the law or the idea that the Constitution lays out a solid foundation rather than a flexible platform. They do not concern themselves with these things because they know that they can bend and shape the Constitution to fit their whims, like not executing someone because of a little pain. I guess he found pain in the Constitution where the SCOTUS found abortion.
Speaking of abortion, ever notice how so many leftist twits will work their butts off to keep a convicted murderer from being executed but will do anything they can to help murder unborn children? An unborn child feels pain but that does not stop the left from worshiping abortion in the church of liberalism. They take great pride in allowing a doctor to snip open a kid’s head and suck his brains out just seconds before he is born. Obama even agrees with allowing them to be born and then left alone so they can die, simply because their mothers did not want them.
The world would be a better place if these liberals had been aborted by their mothers.
Source:
USA Today
Tags: abortion, che, death penalty, marxism, Obama, pain, socialism
Obama Will Screw The Wealthy
Jun 13, 2008 Political
I know the idea of screwing the wealthy appeals to many people though I personally don’t understand that mentality. With regard to Social Security and retirement, the idea always appeals to liberals. Social Security is a mechanism with which the government keeps people in poverty because the government controls the fund (which is a misnomer because there is no dedicated fund). The government gets less than a 1% return on the money in Social Security and yet they refuse to consider privatizing at least a portion of it. The presumptive nominee Barack Obama used the current stock market tumbles to stress the point that if retirement money had been tied up in the market people would be hurting right about now. The fact is, they still would have earned more than SS does and they would have the potential to earn unlimited amounts and to receive unlimited amounts in retirement. With SS, one is capped no matter how much income the person made in his lifetime.
Obama wants to increase the amount of Social Security taxes one pays if income is over $250,000. He also wants to raise the cap on the amount that is subject to SS deduction. Obama believes that it is unfair for people making under the cap amount to pay SS on 100% of their income while those who earn more than the cap don’t pay on the portion of income above it. This sounds fair but it is not. People who make a lot of money and who do not begin drawing benefits early are capped on how much they may receive. At about $150,000 the monthly benefit (for 2008) is $2381. It stays at this number regardless of how much money a person makes above the $150,000 so a person who makes $250,000 (or even a million dollars) still only gets $2381. If Obama wants to talk about fairness, how fair is it that they are capped on what they may receive when those who make below $150,000 will get a benefit based upon 100% of their earnings?
As far as privatizing Social Security goes, it is the only proper thing to do. As it stands right now, money is collected from workers and paid to those who are currently drawing benefits. Workers who die prior to retirement lose what they have paid in. Reduced benefits can be paid to spouses but this does not take away from the fact that when you pay it in you lose it, it is no longer yours and you cannot pass it on to your heirs as you could with money you put away in savings or in the stock market. Workers who put a portion of their SS deductions into a private account would make more money and be able to retire on more than $2381 a month. They would also be able to pass the money on to their heirs. The government does not like this because people who are financially independent do not depend on the government and have no need for more social programs. Politicians can’t scare old people for votes if those people are well off.
Obama is a Socialist who believes in redistribution of wealth. He talks about fairness but his ideas are no where near fair. Wealthy people pay almost all the taxes in this country and the liberals keep tapping them for more and more. It is not right and it should not be tolerated.
If only people in this country learned the value of saving and how they could take care of themselves we could all retire in better shape and without government intrusion. Unfortunately, people have come to rely on government for everything. Social Security to the elderly is like crack cocaine to a junkie. Once they get it they are so tied to it they will vote for anyone who promises to protect it.
If they had been able to invest in their youth they would not have an addiction to government.
Source:
WBAL (via AP)
Quick Benefits Calculator (SSA)
Tags: Obama, rich people, social security, socialism, taxes
Obama Wants Us to Sacrifice Our Lifestyle
May 19, 2008 Political
Barack Obama was in Oregon where he is expected to win the state’s Democratic primary. He held a rally where, according to reports, 70,000 mindless people showed up to listen to their new Messiah. There are still questions as to whether this was the “Walk on water tour” or the “Fishes and loaves tour” but whichever it was the Messiah of Socialism did not disappoint. Barry O told the crowd that America must lead by example. What example is that you ask? Is it by living in freedom? Is it by following the rule of law as laid out in our Constitution? Is it by demonstrating acts of kindness to everyone including our adversaries (like in China)? No, Barry wants us to lead by giving up things we have gained as a result of our freedom
Pitching his message to Oregon’s environmentally-conscious voters, Obama called on the United States to “lead by example” on global warming, and develop new technologies at home which could be exported to developing countries.
“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK,” Obama said.
“That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen,” he added. AFP [emphasis mine]
In order for the world to embrace the myth of man made global warming Americans have to give up eating what they want, driving what they want or keeping their homes at the temperatures they want. How exactly Barry O expects this leadership to take place is unclear but it is a sure bet that some type of government intervention will be involved. Perhaps increased taxes on SUVs, heating fuel and food deemed to be in excess of what the government thinks is required. Regardless of the method, it will certainly be a denial of our freedom to choose. As for exporting technologies, where is the money for that going to come from?
Despite what Barry O says, Americans should be free to drive what they want, eat what they want and keep their houses at the temperature they want and if the rest of the world does not like that then tough. Al Gore certainly does not set any examples for the world to follow. He has a carbon footprint that is larger than many small nations. Barry O has not given up traveling all over the country in jets in order to preach to the minions. He has a huge house that uses energy even while he is on the road or living in DC. I am not sure what he drives but if he is like most Democrats in Congress he drives a leased vehicle that uses lots of fuel.
Americans need to be focused on their own lives and on living the way they want. We do not need to care if people in third world nations around the globe are living a life that is substandard to ours. If they want improvement then they need to rise up and change their own situations. If they are waiting for me to stop driving a jeep for them I hope they are not holding their breath.
Others:
The Astute Bloggers
Big Dog Salute to Always on Watch
Tags: big government, leadership, Obama, sacrifice, socialism
Obama Policies Bring Murder to Chicago
Apr 20, 2008 Political
Barack Hussein Obama is an ultra liberal socialist who wants the government to run every aspect of our lives. He does not believe in traditional American values and he has little regard for this country other than his own desire to run it. Obama believes that small town America clings to guns and religion out of bitterness and that we need to see the Obama light to be relieved of our bitterness. We already know how Obama feels about religion because we got a first hand look at his church and the racist pastor that Obama listened to and followed for over 20 years.
How Obama feels about guns is a different story. He is elusive when asked about gun ownership and he uses buzz words like sensible regulation which really means that he thinks the government should decide how we are allowed to exercise our Second Amendment rights. Obama wrote on a questionnaire that he favored a ban on the manufacture, sale or possession of firearms. He wrote it in his own handwriting though now he claims that he did not fill it out. However, I have read many articles where Obama said that he believed we should ban guns. Obama has never really stated his agreement with the Second Amendment. He always discusses protecting a person’s right to own a gun to hunt or target shoot. I have never heard him say that people had the right to own firearms to protect themselves. Why would he? Socialists believe the government is the great protector. They know that an armed citizenry can oppose the tyranny of government and that is why they want us disarmed. Obama, like many liberals, believes that disarming people will bring safety to our streets despite the fact that this has been shown to be false on a number of occasions. We have seen time and again that states with carry laws, those with the most weapons, are the safest and have the fewest gun crimes. There are only gun crimes in these states in so called gun free zones, think Virginia Tech.
Several times throughout this campaign B. Hussein Obama mentioned the 34 or so Chicago school kids who were killed in 2007. At one event he was asked about Virginia Tech and he mentioned the Chicago youths and then said that the problem would not be solved until we cared about the Chicago kids as much as the VT students. When Obama makes mention of things such as this his followers go nuts and agree with him because they have lost the ability to think. Obama is telling them that guns are a problem and that kids in Chicago get killed with guns.
What he fails to tell them is that Chicago has extremely tough gun laws. According to the Obama thought process, there should be little to no gun deaths in Chicago. The poor chirren in Chicago schools should not be getting killed because guns are outlawed and Obama has told us that outlawing them will solve the problem. He and his liberal colleagues fail to mention that while Virginia is a must issue state, the campus at VT is a gun free zone and that means, according to Obama, there should be no gun violence there. And yet, people died. The liberals lie about the efficacy of gun control and continue to espouse policies that do not work. Liberals lie and people die.
The Democrats knew that they got beaten up in previous elections because of their opposition to free people owning guns so they retooled their message. They threw in the buzz words and they triangulated. They try to appeal to the middle Americans who own guns and who live their lives every day without using those guns illegally so that they can be elected where they can continue to impose Draconian gun laws on people. Assault weapons bans, gun free zones, fingerprinting ammunition, and any a number of other mindless schemes await us if these fools take a large majority and get the White House.
I have already stated that Chicago has tough gun laws and that, according to Obama and the libs, there should be little crime there. Over this past weekend 32 people have been shot and 6 have been killed there in what is being described as gang related violence. How is this happening and how come the strict gun laws there have not prevented this? Why are people running around taking lives? Any bets that some of the gang bangers are ILLEGALS, the same people that Obama claims we hate because of bitterness?
I wonder if the gang bangers in Chicago are bitter like those described in Obama’s vision of small town America? Perhaps these people clung to the same religion Obama did and heard the same message which then made them bitter so they turned to guns.
Perhaps it is because Chicago is full of liberals and has been in the control of Democrats for decades. The same welfare, failed policies, and gun control that Obama and others want to impose on the country are already in place there and have been for a long time. Those very liberal policies and the accompanying liberal leadership has fostered an environment that allows people to go around killing each other (with weapons they are not allowed to have). Obama and his ilk will blame this on the availability of guns (but keep in mind there is strict gun control) and will call for a ban on them.
I say that the reason there is disorder is because of failed liberal politicians and their failed liberal policies.
Instead of banning guns we should ban liberals.
That would make America safer.
Tags: chicago, gun control, liberals, lies, Obama, socialism
Why Insult McCarthy by Comparing to Clinton?
Mar 22, 2008 Political
Recently, Bill Clinton made a statement that has garnered the attention of the Obama campaign (I know that is hard to believe) and a retired Air Force general is likening the statement to something Joe McCarthy would have said. Clinton said this about a match up between Hillary and John McCain:
“I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country,” said Clinton, who was speaking to a group of veterans Friday in Charlotte, N.C. “And people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics.”
I think one could actually argue as to whether Hillary (or Bill for that matter) actually love this country. They love the opportunities they have been afforded but they are always trying to move it toward Socialism and they put their political aspirations above country, party, or anything else. However, why does this general feel the need to insult Senator McCarthy? McCarthy was absolutely correct when he said that Communists had infiltrated our government. He might have seen more people as Communists than actually were but he was correct. There were Communists in Hollywood and there were Communists working for our government. They used the same tactics that Muslims use, deny, counter, and accuse in order to turn the anger toward the original accuser. They managed to get to McCarthy and he died young but he was absolutely right.
The Obama campaign is slinging some dirt in order to deflect the uproar created by Senator Obama’s participation in the whitey bash fest known as Trinity Church headlined by Pastor Jeremiah was a racist Wright. General Merrill McPeak stated that he grew up when McCarthy was accusing good Americans of being Communists. I wonder if the General realizes that there were Communists and while there might have been some false accusations, there were a lot of true ones. In any event General, why insult McCarthy for Clinton’s pattern of speech? McPeak tells us that Bill Clinton’s phraseology is designed to make people think Obama is not a patriot or does not love his country.
I have no doubt that the General is correct in this but this is a Bill Clinton trademark. The General worked for Clinton and should recognize it as such. Instead, he equates it to Senator McCarthy in effort to make it appear as if Obama has been a victim of a McCarthy like attack. Come on General, this is Bill Clinton, the same guy who argued what the meaning of “is” is. This is the Bill Clinton who did not have sexual relations with that woman when he really had sexual relations with that woman except as defined by him and his lawyers. This is the same Bill Clinton whose administration had the most investigations and scandals in the history of the presidency. Why not say that his phraseology was Clintonesque? Why insult Joe McCarthy by associating him with Bill Clinton?
I certainly believe that Bill Clinton meant to imply that Obama does not love this country. I happen to believe that Obama does not love this country because it has too many white people in it and he would love it more if we whites would move on out and give it up to the brothers in accordance with the Gospel according to Wright. However, I don’t believe the Clintons have a great love for the country other than what they can get from it. Bill protested us from a foreign land and Hillary hates the military. So they are all equally guilty of hating this country, as far as I am concerned.
Regardless, how about these campaigns stick to fighting with each other and quit sullying the good names of long dead Senators?
Source:
Breitbart
Tags: Clinton, communism, innuendo, lies, mccarthy, Obama, socialism