The Death Penalty

I had a discussion with my far-left leaning boss the other day about the death penalty. As a matter of policy, I have always felt it is a necessary policy. But my convictions were never very strong. As a lib, my boss is adamantly opposed in all instances. Of course, you don't have to be a liberal to oppose it. However, he was clear that his opposition is consistent with his liberal views.

It was a good discussion, unlike many of our disagreements because it brought to light many of the pros and cons of the subject. For instance, while the Torah allows it, a Jewish court that utilized it (at the time of the Holy Temple) was considered a "murderous court."

One of his biggest issues with the death penalty is the fact that it really isn't a deterrent. I mean, if someone is hell-bent on killing another person, it's unlikely that the threat of execution is going to stop it. Although, I suppose it has caused some to reconsider. Furthermore - and this may have been his biggest complaint - is that the possibility exist that we may execute the wrong person (the person may have been wrongly accused). It isn't THAT rare when the courts make a mistake.

After all, once a person is executed, realizing an error was made is not something we can correct. Not with that guy, anyway.

These are all valid concerns and there are no easy answers to them. On the other hand, there are also valid reasons to allow the death penalty as well. But we must be very certain that there is not a shadow of a doubt of guilt, before taking the life of someone.

Obviously, the most recognized reason - as morally unfortunate as it may be - is the revenge factor. You killed someone's loved one and now you will pay with your own blood. An eye-for-an-eye, so to speak. Another consideration is executing someone who is exceptionally dangerous, even in incarceration. Furthermore, there must be values to the people who have fallen victims. For instance, assassinating the President, or a policeman, should carry with it a more stern punishment.

What about child molesters? Well, if their victim survived, the animal should not be executed. But if in the act of the molestation he kills the child? This man has no right to occupy the air we all share. Someone who is capable of murdering children is beyond rehabilitation.

The reason I vacillate between being pro and con on this issue is because as someone who faced death, I know how scary and lonely it is. The idea that there is no more...anything is frightening beyond words. However, as I healed, I began to understand that while life on earth does end, we do not just "end." Call it heaven, call it a weigh-station or call it Montana, whatever it is, it is. I know it and because I know it, I know longer fear the day I will discover it first hand.

With this knowledge, I no longer feel sorry for the execution of certain people. John Allen Muhammad murdered 11 people in the Washington, D.C. area in the fall of 2002. With his rampage, he scared hundreds of thousands of people who feared they would be next. He had no rhyme or reason to kill these particular 10 people. The legal reason for the execution was because of his shooting Dean Harold Meyers, 53, who was shot and killed while pumping gas at a Sunoco station in Manassas, VA.

It could have been anyone. I fill up my tank with gas every other week. Another of those killed Oct. 3 was Lori Lewis Rivera, a 25-year-old nanny and mother. She was vacuuming her employer's minivan at a Shell station at Connecticut and Knowles avenues when she was shot in the back. The bullet fragmented inside, destroying her left lung.

Conrad Johnson was standing on the top step of Ride On Bus number 5705, when a bullet pierced through the abdomen of the 35-year-old driver. At the time of the murder, Johnson and his wife had two sons, ages 13 and 21.

Imagine what it's like for a 14-year-old boy to lose his dad because some arrogant, unstable SOB decides it's open season on everyday Americans.

Where is the justice for him and his brother?

The stories are heart wrenching. Yes, I know that prison is not something any sane person would want. But just like what my boss said - that execution is final - the other sode of the coin is the possibility that this monster can be set free one day. Whether it be through the appeal process, jailbreak or an ACLU lawyer discovering that page 265 of the conviction is unvalid because they only made 4 copies, and not the required 5. So they throw out the conviction.

Do you doubt something like this happens?

And what about Nidal Malik Hasan?

If this is a case of homegrown terrorism, will he be charged with Treason? That's an executable offense. I love all of these talking heads on the left who are ignored Hasan's religious doctrine and instead focusing on how an Army Major could have Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Speaking as someone who was diagnosed with the disorder, following my transplant, I can tell you it did not make me feel homicidal. If anything, it made me very sad, and at times suicidal. But how do you contract PTSD when you didn't have any trauma? Fail.

But this is not about why Hasan did what he did. The question is, should he be put to death for his crimes? How about Osama Bin Ladin, assuming we ever capture him? Had we caught Hitler alive, would we have spared his life? I'm sure there are many on the left who would say "yes."

After all, by executing someone - whether they deserve it or not - we are playing G-d. It's interesting to hear that from Atheists, though. So here is what I'm thinking...

The death penalty is needed perhaps not as a real deterrent to stop someone of committing a crime, but as a consequence. Obviously, the death sentence should 0nly be used where the evidence is so overwhelming and doubt is not in doubt (i.e. Major Hasan - there is no doubt of his guilt. The only question some have is his motivation).

My feeling is this - if you take someone else's life on purpose, you lose your right to live. Even though death comes relatively quickly in an execution, for that brief moment when the lethal injection is put in, he will then know and see what his victims knew and saw. He will feel the same horrific fear that they feared. It isn't perfect, but it is justice.

When I had my heart attack, I was rushed into the hospital and I recall a female doctor who was there from Los Angeles. After asking her if she were an angel, she responded that I was still alive, but barely and they must get me into the OR immediately. G-d showed tremendous grace on me by making me forget the next 4 days. But what I do remember was the feeling that my heart was a ticking bomb and the only way I can get better was through a bypass. However, I was still way too sick to survive the surgery. I was constantly reminded by the machine that was pumping my heart, that any number of things can go wrong between then and four days later.

I had to make my peace and it was a good thing i did. What I mean is, I remember the feeling of preparing for death in your mind. In some of these cases, they were lucky enough to die instantaneously, instead of suffered and dying slowly. Cruel and Humane punishment laws are in affect so we don't torture the murderer. But I honestly believe that should someone kill another human being in cold blood (pre-meditated), he should learn first-hand what it is to die.

Following the Wrong People

There is a failing campaign out there to boycott all the advertisers of the Glenn Beck show on FOX News, Aside from the absurdity of it all, this smacks of Marxist theology. Even though these radicals have managed to strong arm their way into causing certain companies to drop Beck, for the most part, this is a losing proposition. It's becoming increasingly clear - at least to those who have followed the latest Nielsen ratings - that the ore publicity this boycott receives, the higher Beck's ratings become.

It is so ridiculous that had Beck been a liberal talk show host, I would accuse him of starting this boycott himself to generate ratings.

But what is it about Glenn Beck (or Sarah Palin, or any other passionate conservative) that scares liberals so much?

Oh yes, I've heard it all from the left - "Glenn's a crybaby", "Palin wants to de-legalize abortion", "Beck only cares about rich white people" and my favorite "Palin isn't really a woman."

Seriously! People, listen to yourselves. Do you know why you believe these things to be true? Honestly, ask yourself this question - "Have I actually watched and listened to Glenn Beck?" "Have I actually listened to what Sarah Palin has said, or seen for myself what she has accomplished?"

Chances are, most of you have these impressions of conservatives from listening to liberals. You may have watched Katie Couric, when she wittingly edited her interview to make Sarah Palin, a woman thrust into the spotlight so quickly that she faulted a bit in an interview. Or you may tend to think Keith Olbermann is cool because he used to be on Sportscenter.

But these voices in the mainstream media have never been even handed. Much of what you hear - especially the majority of this country who get our news from Jon Stewart or Perez Hilton - is left-wing propaganda to begin with.

All I can ask is that you open your eyes and see what is happening. I'll give you five questions to ponder:

1. Why does Obama have the need for 27 "czars?" Isn't a czar by definition an "autocratic ruler?" Wasn't the Russian ruler the Czar? Is that what this country is trying to emulate?

2. Haven't we been taught, since a very young age, that if you really want to know who a person is, look at those he follows and befriends? Have you ever seen one friend of Obama - whether it be as a child, or as an adult, who was not a radical - or greatly influenced by one?

3. If you are personally $10,000 in debt, how is spending $100,000 more going to make you solvent? Isn't that what Obama is doing to this economy?

4. If universal health care is really the answer, why are Canada, the United Kingdom and a number of other nations strongly considering abandoning theirs?

5. This last question is something you need to consider even more intensley: If humans truly are the cause of global warming, what then caused the globe to warm before man was even on the earth? If "everyone" agrees that climate change is man-made and can be reversed, why are there still so many scientists who disagree? Furthermore, we have always been told that in investigating an issue, follow the money. So why do we ignore it now with Al Gore, and the amount of money he's earning to peddle his "sky is falling" rhetoric?

People, it's time to educate yourselves. It's really time to get your heads out of your asses and begin to understand what is transpiring. As Don Henley said (whether it was about Republicans or not doesn't make a difference), "we get the government we deserve."

Instead of allowing ourselves to be called "hate-mongers", "racists", "right-wing thugs" or "Nazis" by our elected representatives, take a stand and remind them that they work for us, not the other way around. Congress has become so arrogant and self-serving that it has long ago become a joke. They take you for fools because they know when the time comes, Jon Stewart or Oprah Winfrey will make sure you vote for the "right" people.

They are the wrong people to listen to. You don't have to listen to me, either. Just open your eyes. The pain of reality is much, much less painful then the pain we will experience if we don't stop them.

If you have the courage to understand what I mean, I urge you to watch this video:

I'm going to ask this a succuinctly as possible. According to this article, the US government is going to buy 17,000 automobiles from US car makers to "help boost the economy." Excuse me, but who is paying for it? The American taxpayer, right? So while this helps the auto industry but adding money to their pockets, it's money that (and follow me here) that comes out of our pockets as well. Isn't this just robbing from Peter to pay Paul? How does this help our economy?

I'll explain - if you have $100 and you buy something worth $100, you end up even. But according to Omanomics, if you spend $100 you somehow have boosted the economy to $150? According to Obama, and he really said this, the more we spend, the more growth we have. Well, that only works when we are creating new growth, not moving around existing dollars. Why doesn't he (ar any of his sychofants) get that? I mean, it's basic economics.

Unfortunately, I have the only theory that explains this. In general, this plan would be unheard of and simply unreasonable, and it's hard to imagine so many in government are stupid. Which means there must be another agenda. I believe that we should take Rahm Emanuel at his word when he said "“Rule 1: Never allow a crisis to go to waste.”

With the economy struggling, here is an opportunity for Obama to expand his power and the size of government in a way he could never hope to had we not had this economic turmoil. Unfortunataely, given what we know about how Chris Dodd and Barney Frank (as well as Obama by recieving the second highest amount of donation money from Fannie and Freddie), I am left believing that this economic collapse was planned specifically in order to steal this government for the Democrats.

How else can you explain how unbelievably villified President Bush was for doing the exact same things that Obama is doing and getting praised for?

We were duped, America. Of course, many of us saw this all along. But the Democrats saw Barack Obama and realized that he was the perfect face (and I mean that racially) for the moment. They knew that every time they ran one of there top guys (Kerry, Dukakis, Mondale) that most Americans wouldn't even look their way. But by finding a "light" African-American, one that wasn't "too-black" (which would scare off middle-America), one that spoke eloquently (although with a teleprompter), all they would have to do is not get caught up in the details. All they would have to do is stay on some vague message of "hope and change" and they could actually pull this off.

My friends, this was in the making for years. The whole thing. From when they started screaming of "stolen elections" until they finally wore down the nation with all the Bush=Hitler, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo garbage (and it is and was simply garbage) to the point we all started to believe the nonsense. All of it was part of the plan. After all, isn't that what Marx taught about destroying your enemies?

Yes, I said enemies. Because to a liberal, the enemy is not Al Queda. It's not Fascism or Communism. It's not Arab supremacy. No, to a liberal the enemy is conservatism. The only tough part for the liberals was the fact that many Democrats don't feel that way. That's why when you say this generalization to them, they argue that it isn't true. And it isn't to many in the center to center left.

But the center left are no longer the standard-bearers of the Democrat Party. The far left have stolen that mantle from them as well. The likes of Michael Moore, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank and yes, Barack Obama, have somehow convinced the center-left that their way is the way.

Now, in truth, I don't know how interested many of the center left was in knowing what was really happening. Since we are fully in the MTV generation, where more people care about the latest news about Julia Roberts than they do about John Roberts, I feel rather certain that it didn't take much to convince middle America that Bush is evil and the devil incarnate. Add to that mix the overwhelming support of the black community - and please know that I understand their infatuation and desire to see a black person as President. I know that when Joe Lieberman ran for Veep, I was also swelled with pride over a person of my religion was in such a position.

So back to my question (maybe it wasn't so succinct). Why are we buying into this crap?

Obama is clearly not an economist. In fact, aside from a law degree (and I know some attorneys I wouldn't even shake hands with) and having a pleasant demeanor, what has he accomplished? Getting elected? So what? Heck, Richard Nixon and Barney Frank got elected! What else?

Anyone???

Let's look at where this country is after 100 days of his leadership. All that's been accomplished is the further reduction of Wall Street, and the villification of the greatest source of revenue and growth the world has ever seen.

Secondly, he changed the term "terrorist" to "enemy compatants" and the "War on Terror" is now the "Overseas Contingecy Plan."

Oh my. Osama Bin Ladin must be shaking in his boots.

And now, we are being held hostage by...PIRATES???

While Obama goes around apologizing for all the horrible things we have supposedly done around the world, as if being the the shining example of freedom and democracy and saving most of the free world from the horrors of Naziism and Communism is a horrible thing (wait, fighting communism was wrong - just ask all of those Democrats who were were worshipping at the feet of Fidel Castro this past week), Iran and Notrth Korea are escallating their military and nuclear abilities.

Obama knows this and yet for some very wrong reasons perfers to spend his energy dictating to Israel. I'm telling you, if there were a bucket in the Oval Office, it would be on Obama's head. I was worried that an Obama presidency would set us back to a September 10, 2001 mindset. Then, I thought he was setting us back to 1979 and Jimmy Carter's failures.

But I stand corrected. What Obama is doing is setting us back to 1775!

I started to thing that just maybe the Republicans can send Pelosi and her gang back to sidelines in 2010. Now, I wonder that if they don't, will there even be a viable country worth saving in 2012.