Cruel And Unusual Punishment v. Price Of Criminal Actions

When the Constitutionality of the death penalty is challenged under the no cruel and unusual punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment it makes me laugh. It does that because the Fifth Amendment, with the words “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” clearly states you can take a person’s life as long as their has been due process of law. The Fifth Amendment also states that you can deprive a person of life and limb as long as you don’t try them twice for the same crime. That is what the words “twice put in jeopardy of life or limb” clearly indicate. So the Defense Attorneys want us to believe that we can constitutionally cut off someone’s hand but not inject them with drugs meant to kill them as painlessly as possible.

Would someone please explain to me how you can “deprive a person of life” without putting them to death. So if you are using the most painless method available to carry out a constitutional penalty of law how can you logically be using cruel and unusual punishment.

The Supreme Court knows this and yet they are willing to hear such an absurd case. That is scary. The court is hearing a case that should never even have made it into a lower court. I hypotheses that the only reason the federal court is really listening to this is that they are bowing to pressure from the United Nations. The UN has been known to pressure other countries and I see no reason to believe that we are not also so pressured. The ACLU is NGO that speaks as the mouthpiece of the United Nations and they voice a radical anarchist view of human rights. Anarchist believe that there is no justification for the government to take a human life.

We have six known anarchist on the supreme court but at least two are not extremist. Of those two Sandra Day O’Connor will probably be retired by the time. Evidence is that the two “moderate” anarchist will decide for the death penalty as happened in the case of Marvin Bieghler.

We Have The Right To Protect Our Borders, But Will We?

Chris Hawley in an article entitled “Plan to give migrants Ariz. maps is scrapped” shows how the government of Mexico and traitors within the United States are aiding illegal immigrants to colonize the United States.

The National Human Rights Commission said it was responding to worries raised by human rights officials in Mexican border states. It cited a statement by the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, a civilian border patrol group, vowing to use the maps to help find migrants.

"We're going to re-examine our strategy to see in what way we can support (migrants)," said Miguel Angel Paredes, spokesman for the commission. "I don't know if it will be the same thing, through maps or some other way. We're still in that process of evaluating ideas."

The truth is the United States is ripe for colonization because of the radical birth control agenda that controls the government. White are declining in population while blacks are now barely holding even. The fastest growing segment of our population is Hispanics and has been for some time. Here is a report from Child and Youth Indicators DataBank.

Differences by Race and Ethnicity
In 2004, Hispanic women had the highest fertility rates, followed by non-Hispanic black women and Asian women. Fertility rates for Hispanic women were approximately 40 percent higher than those for non-Hispanic black women and Asian women (98 births per 1,000 for Hispanic women versus 67 births per 1,000 for black and Asian women), and more than 60 percent higher than those for women in all other racial and ethnic groups. Non-Hispanic white women and Native American women had the lowest fertility rates (59 births per 1,000 women for both groups in 2004) (all estimates for 2004 are preliminary).

The question to be asked is the United States going to stand up for their rights and defend their borders or are they going to lay down and die.

Evolution Is A Violation Of The Religious Rights Of The People Of The United States

Null hypothesis
The statistical hypothesis that one variable (e.g. whether or not a study participant was allocated to receive an intervention) has no association with another variable or set of variables (e.g. whether or not a study participant died), or that two or more population distributions do not differ from one another. In simplest terms, the null hypothesis states that the results observed in a study are no different from what might have occurred as a result of the play of chance.

At the root of Evolution v. Intelligent Design debate or more correctly the Evolution by chance v. the Evolution by intelligent design debate is the null hypothesis. All the rest of the arguments used to booster either side of the evolution debate and therefore merely a diversion. The question can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that either chance or intelligent design was the root cause of the development of the species. From everything I know you can not. Since that is so it is up to an individual to decide for themselves. Such decision by its very nature is the realm of an individuals religious beliefs.

The government has been denied the right to make that decision by the First Amendment in two ways. The first is that in making the decision they are evangelizing for a particular minority group of religions which include atheism and certain other religious beliefs. So the rights of taxpayers and teachers are being violated by their being forced to monetarily or physically support the evangelism of a religion they do not agree with. The second civil right violation is that the students are being forced to practice a religion they do not agree with. This is a violation of the free expression of religious clause.

The court backed up by a number of Congress people states the federal courts have the right to violate the rights of the people under the political theory of the evolving constitution. I make the accusation that those backing the evolving constitution are domestic enemies of the Constitution and should be fought at every step. The proof I give is that the Constitution and not court law is the high law of the land. The Constitution made no allowances for it evolving through court law but instead set up legislative means for it to be amended. The Constitution makes all governmental official including judges take an oath to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution specifies that all legislation must be done by Congress so reserving the changing of laws to that branch. The Declaration states it is the duty of all branches to guard and protect the true civil rights of the people and not destroy them.

The Military Stands Firm Against Civil Right Abuse By Anarchist

I am using "Officers Discharged Under Policy on Gays" by Associated Press writer Lolito C. Baldor as the source for the follow cites.

The 350 or so affected are a tiny fraction of the 1.4 million members of the uniformed services and about 3.5 percent of the more than 10,000 people discharged under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy since its inception in 1994.

But many were military school graduates or service members who went to medical school at the taxpayers' expense — troops not as easily replaced by a nation at war that is struggling to fill its enlistment quotas

I find the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy a surprisingly simple solution for a complicated situation be gay movement advocates are absolutely livid about it. In no way should the government push the homosexual lifestyle as it is proven to drastically shorten the average lifespan of those whom practice it. We also know that nature does not equip us to have intercourse with members of the same sex so those that choose to do so are showing hate toward their and their partners bodies.

Individuals who are forced out of the military for practicing this self destructive behavior have only themselves to blame as all they have to do is keep their mouth shut about their sexual aberration. Homosexuality is proven to be an unhealthy lifestyle which means that medical bills for those choosing to indulge in it will be higher. If the government is footing those bills it is the taxpayers who are paying for the monetary effect of a soldier choosing to be homosexual.

I am concerned unless some use the don’t ask, don’t tell policy as a way to scam the government and therefore the taxpayer our of money but I am of the opinion that as long as they work and pay taxes after they are kicked out then they will repay for the expense of training them.

The overall discharges peaked in 2000 and 2001, on the heels of the 1999 murder of Pfc. Barry Winchell, who was bludgeoned to death by a fellow soldier at Fort Campbell, Ky., who believed Winchell was gay. About one-sixth of the discharges in 2001 were at that base.

This showed some fool believed vigilantism was necessary is punishing Winchell for his perceived crime. That is if homosexuality was really the motive behind the murder. Murder is best handled by law enforcement and I see no evidence that law enforcement failed to do their job.

Opponents of the policy are backing legislation in the House sponsored by Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass., that would repeal the law. But that bill — with 107 co-sponsors — is considered a longshot in the Republican-controlled House.

That is why we have to keep the pro-anarchist Democrats out of every position of power we can. We need to watch the Republicans also as half the justices appointed by Republicans have ended up anarchist. Anarchist are against organized rules, in this case it is the rules of morality.

Individual Constitution Interpretation Must Be Adhered To By Congress Members

Samuel Alitto confirmation made it out of the judicial committee today by a 10-8 vote. The vote was along patrician lines and not pro-life.

I heard a congressman who stated that as long as the ABA states a judge was qualified and his colleagues stated he was not partisan then he or she has the right to sit on a federal court. Despite the fact that this Senator a Republican voted for Alitto his word were nonsense. Ever public official makes an oath to defend the constitution from its enemies and uphold their own personal interpretation of it. If a Senator suspects or is convinced that a candidate before them will prove an enemy of the Constitution their job is to vote against them. This may make it hard for a President with a Constitutional belief that is opposed by the majority of the Senate to get any candidate on the bench but then that is where the art of compromise enters the picture.

The minority can use the filibuster but I am opposed to the filibuster in any of its uses because it is undemocratic giving the minority a veto power the Constitution does not extend to them. The main job of congress is to investigate and vote on legislation and anything that proves an obstruction to this purpose is bad for our country. This is because anything that is purposely set up to obstruct a team from doing their project would be viewed by the employer as bad for business.

To Establish Justice Many Unsung Heroes Give Their Life And Liberty

I got the inspiration for this blog from an Associated Press article by Mitch Staty called "DNA Exonerates Fla. Man After 24 Years"

Alan Crotzer stepped into the warm sunlight outside the courthouse Monday and raised his arms to the sky, celebrating his freedom after more than 24 years behind bars for crimes he didn't commit

This is a sad tale with a happy ending. It is a tale of the miscarry of justice. But lets be truthful we know we are human beings and subject to making errors in judgment. Evidence, as it did in this case, can point to a person being guilty of a crime and yet be innocent. Of course in can work the other way.

The question is does this “new” fact justify revamping the justice system and making penalties for crimes lighter. I say no because then you would let known felons out on the street to prey on innocent victims all the more often. The liberty of the few is often sacrificed for the liberty of the many. Alan Crotzer made that sacrifice for us all. I do not know if it was willing or unwillingly but that either way we should appreciate what he and other innocent men and women have done and are doing for us by suffering for crimes they did not commit. They keep the savages in our society within the gates of prisons where the belong. Sometimes these heroes, whether they are brave or not, are called to give their life and health to ensure the rights of the rest of us.

Prosecutor Mike Sinacore congratulated him. ``Trying to fix an error in the system is just as important as trying to convict someone who is guilty,'' he said.

Mr. Sinacore shows a good attitude in wanting to correct an injustice but many will try to use this to say that capital punishment is unjustified. The a wrong for it is a well established point of justice of a life for a life and liberty for liberty. Why should we treat the life of the victim as being less valuable than the life of the perpetrator. Should it not be the other way.

``There ain't no compensation for what they done to me,'' said Crotzer, whose mother died while he was in prison. ``But I'm not bitter.''

He will most likely get better treatment than are soldiers do who do a similar job. I wonder if anyone will thank him for taking punishment he did not deserve so that others of us will live in freedom. There are no doubt many men and women in jail whose names we do not know who suffer in order that we are insured of justice. They should be thanked for that sacrifice.

A Day The Constitution Fell To The Grief Of Many May Be Comming To An End

Read this Newsday article called “Marchers' renewed hope” by Carol Eisenberg. The cites below come from it.

Year in and year out, Marie Mawn has risen at 3 a.m. to catch the bus from St. Joseph's parish in Ronkonkoma for the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C.

She deserves respect as a diligent patriot of the pro life cause:

But this year feels different to the seasoned soldier in the anti-abortion movement: For the first time in 33 years, Mawn has a sense that historic change is at hand - the beginning of the end of the 1973 court decision that made a woman's right to abortion the law of the land.

A woman does not have the right to arbitrarily and deliberately kill a her child as the Declaration of Independence made natural law the law of the land. The Constitution merely tries to enumerate it just like it states in the Ninth Amendment. Natural law states that you are not at liberty to harm yourself or any living creature in your possession except for noble cause. In other words a woman has no right to abortion.

"I believe that the confirmation of Sam Alito to the Supreme Court is dangerous for the future health and welfare of women in this country," said JoAnn D. Smith, interim president of Planned Parenthood of Nassau County. "This is an appointment for life, which means it will probably be a generation or more who will have to live by his decisions."

So having children is dangerous for children. Considering that Planned Parenthood is really the Birth Control league and most likely changed their name in order to hide their connection to Eugenics, I am not surprised. Controlling births is the agenda of Planned Parenthood and not protecting the health and welfare of woman and don’t le them deceive you. Planned Parenthood operates in China where women are forced to have abortion and in India where thousands of women die from legal but unsafe abortions. Do the work to get antibiotics to the third world in order to save women. No rather they work to get RU486, that has numerous adverse effects even in developed countries, exported into developing countries.

When you choose your side be aware that the Birth Control League considers the human race women and all the enemy who needs to be kept in check while the other values human life. Choose wisely,