Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Death Penalty’

Doesn’t it seem Bush likes to be part of someone’s death?

March 24th, 2010 4 comments

Only a few years ago he was at an interview and was chuckling about a woman’s imminent killing on death row. Bush has the govenor’s of Texas record of death row killings and now he’s taking this to the presidency.

VANCOUVER (CBC) – U.S. President George W. Bush became the first American president in 51 years to approve the execution of a soldier on Monday.

Administration officials said Bush signed the paperwork approving the military’s request to execute an army private who has been on death row since 1988, the Associated Press reported……..
SORRY bUSTER — I gave you no thumbs either down or up.
I agree. He should be put to death. But that wasn’t the question. You must, also, remember that the death penalty in most forward thing developed countries is considered barbaric. I can see their point.

The man killed 4 people and raped 8 others

He should have died years ago

He is a disgrace to the military

Is Obama the weakest candidate on Crime ?

March 6th, 2010 7 comments

Of course McCain supports capital punishment. His record on Crime issues is near-perfect if we leave out the contentious illegal immigration issue. McCain is clearly the strongest on Crime. But what about Obama and Hillary?

When Hillary Rodham Clinton announced her campaign for the Senate in 2000, she declared – emphatically, according to an interviewer – that she supported the death penalty.

When Barack Obama first ran for the Illinois state Senate in 1996, he said in a campaign questionnaire that he opposed capital punishment.

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08/n155/a04.html?204

Obama also opposes federal minimum sentencing, concealed carry, and other anti-crime measures. An Obama presidency would be a huge gift to criminals everywhere

http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Barack_Obama_Crime.htm

Obama is very soft on crime. This country will have a huge hike in criminals if he gets elected. Another gift to his brothers.

what do you think of my paper?

March 4th, 2010 1 comment

Brian Wallace
ENC1101
Agama
October 29, 2008

Justice Should be Served: The Issue of Capital Punishment

The issue over capital punishment has been heavily debated for centuries. The death sentence originated from the Latin term ‘caput’ meaning head, and refers to the beheading of prisoners. In today’s society people who commit vicious crimes should also face the ultimate consequence for their actions. Though the form of punishment has transformed over the years, capital punishment continues to be fair and justified. The taxes paid by innocent Americans are being used to maintain the imprisonment of murders; equal justice should serve as the foundation for our judicial system, and the captivity of life-sentenced prisoners increases the probability of further damage and escape.  
How does the American economy benefit from the death penalty? How do rapists and murders travel from the streets to an environment with roofs over their head? Edward Laijas makes a solid point about the government’s use of American tax dollars when he states: “Lets imagine there was no death penalty for a moment. The only reasonable sentence would be a life sentence. This would be costly to the taxpayers, not only for the cost of housing and feeding the prisoner but because of the numerous appeals, which wastes man-hours and money.” (Laijas 1) One example of this dilemma occurred with Ted Bundy’s stay on death row, which ultimately cost Florida taxpayers more than six million dollars. (Wofford 2) On average a prisoner who is sentenced to death row will serve nine and half years in prison until their execution. (Martinez 1) Thus, it is more economical for these inmates to be executed after the nine month period rather than maintenance them in prison for life, which will only waste space and government funds. Outside of the fact that American’s are forced to essentially support the life of these prisoners, there is also the issue of overcrowding. Abel Martinez comments in the article More economical than life sentence that, “At the end of 1992 State and Federal prisons reached a record high of 883,593 prisoners. This record means that approximately 1,143 prison bed spaces are needed per week due to overcrowding. To put this in an economic prospective, on the average each prisoner cost $22,000 per year, and the cost of new construction averages almost $54,000 per bed.” (Martinez 1)  Therefore, the death penalty not only eliminates the basic feeding and clothing of prisoners, but it also reduces the amount of physical construction, which is much more costly, of prisons.
The American Constitution is founded on equal rights for all citizens. The death penalty is a staple in our society and should be enforced with an equivalent purpose and justifi

well, it looks like it might be good if you finish it….

Do you think Obama, US IL State Senator, is doing enough to make change in Chicago?

February 28th, 2010 12 comments

Just yesterday there were 26 gang related shootings in Chicago. Obama has a voting record on this issue and it has been reported that he voted "NO" in Illinois on making gang members elgible for the death penalty if they kill someone to help their gang, and opposed legislation aimed at cracking down on gangs (HB1812, 2001). So, if he can’t or won’t help change Chicago, how will he help/change America? It seems like Chicago people need their leader at a time like this and he is no where to be found. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/21/us/21chicago.html
Some of you think it is the Mayors job – the mayor didn’t vote against legislation on tougher penalties against gang killings; Obama did.

Well – I have a friend who currently is living in Chicago and has reported seeing him getting his hair cut. So I guess Obama is making change in Chicago in terms of his hair.

SAUDI TO BE CHARGED IN COLE BOMBING – why do hayseeds ignore Bush’s Saudi ties, but fear ‘Obama the Muslim’?

February 22nd, 2010 5 comments

WASHINGTON – The Pentagon said Monday it is charging a Saudi Arabian held at Guantanamo with "organizing and directing" the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, and will seek the death penalty.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25460351/

On the television in his living room, Peterman has watched enough news and campaign advertisements to hear the truth: Sen. Barack Obama, born in Hawaii, is a Christian family man with a track record of public service. But on the Internet, in his grocery store, at his neighbor’s house, at his son’s auto shop, Peterman has also absorbed another version of the Democratic candidate’s background, one that is entirely false: Barack Obama, born in Africa, is a possibly gay Muslim racist who refuses to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25447998

It’s a republican thing, the rest of us are not expected to understand it.
However the confession was the result of waterboarding and may not be admissible so it may never be prosecuted. One more job well done by this (MIS) administration.

Why is Obama misrepresenting his positions in radio ads?

February 19th, 2010 7 comments

Via the Montana Standard:

05/30/2008

Recently, Sen. Barack Obama has been running radio ads in Montana declaring that he is a friend of gun owners and sportsmen, and promising to protect our right to own guns and continue to enjoy our hunting heritage.

In 1996 Obama’s Illinois state senate campaign answered a questionnaire indicating his support for a blanket ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns in Illinois

Obama has supported bans on ammunition magazines, to require the use of gun locks on all guns, supported renewal of the 1994 Clinton gun ban

He proposed a federal law banning licensed firearm dealers from operating within five miles of any school or park, nationwide. This would effectively close down most gun shops throughout the country

In 2001, when Illinois lawmakers tried to control rampant gang violence by making gang members eligible for the death penalty when they commit murder to help their gang, Obama voted against the measure.

He opposes right-to-carry laws and supports federal legislation to ban the right to carry

His record shows that he is about as anti-gun as anyone can be. He is totally misrepresenting his position on gun ownership to the voters of Montana. I hope we all keep this in mind on Election Day.

http://www.mtstandard.com/articles/2008/05/30/opinion/hjjbjegjjcghgj.txt

Montanans are VERY perceptive, he lied to the wrong state.

If only Montana was like Oregon, you can get meth-heads to believe ANYTHING.

Should Texas Repeal/Review its Death Penalty because of the new wave of people freed due to DNA?

January 20th, 2010 4 comments

Texas killed 78 inmates last year, that is more than one a week. They refused to honor the Supreme Court suggestion on a moratorium on killing the mentally impaired. Most of the other states have either repealed or put a moratorium on the death penalty while they review all cases that hinged on DNA and a record number of people have been freed after being wrongfully convicted. Texas is not actively looking at reviewing cases where DNA or circumstantial evidence could free a inmate. Is this fair? I am not advocating freeing those who are guilty and believe that in most cases Life without the possibilityof parole is sufficient. BUT should we take the chance of killing innoncent people rather than admitting there maybe a mistake? The justice system is not set up to kill the innoncent, but instead protect them.

The death penalty is there for a reason and I support it. I do think that with new evidence-DNA-you should have a right to appeal your sentence. And I do believe that a lot of poor people don’t get the same treatment as those with $ for a good lawyer. On the other hand I have known people that are so evil they do not deserve to live among other humans and when they commit "that" crime they need to know that if they are caught and proven guilty, they are going to die. You don’t do a simple murder and get the death sentence, you have to do something heinous. Look at it from the victim’s viewpoint instead of the criminals. . .it will give you a whole new viewpoint about who really has the rights and who doesn’t.

Thumbs down Obama?

January 15th, 2010 9 comments

Record Suggests Obama’s Views Have Changed A Bit
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) ?
If he wanted, the Barack Obama of today could have a pretty good debate with the Barack Obama of yesterday.

They could argue about whether the death penalty is ever appropriate. Whether it makes sense to ban handguns. They might explore their differences on the Patriot Act or parental notification of abortion.

And they could debate whether Obama has flip-flopped, changed some of his views as he learned more over the years or is simply answering questions with more detail and nuance now that he is running for president.

The Democratic senator from Illinois hasn’t made any fundamental policy shifts, such as changing his view on whether abortion should be legal. But his decade in public office and an Associated Press review of his answers to a questionnaire show positions changing in smaller ways.

Taken together, the shifts could suggest a liberal, inexperienced lawmaker gradually adjusting to the realities of what could be accomplished, first in the Illinois Legislature and then the U.S. Senate.

On the other hand, political rivals could accuse him of abandoning potentially unpopular views or of trying to disguise his real positions.

Take the death penalty.

In 1996, when he was running for a seat in the Illinois Senate, Obama’s campaign filled out a questionnaire flatly stating that he did not support capital punishment. By 2004, his position was that he supported the death penalty "in theory" but felt the system was so flawed that a national moratorium on executions was required.

Today, he doesn’t talk about a moratorium and says the death penalty is appropriate for "some crimes — mass murder, the rape and murder of a child — so heinous that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage."

Then there’s another crime-related issue, gun control.

That 1996 questionnaire asked whether he supported banning the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. The campaign’s answer was straightforward: "Yes." Eight years later, he said on another questionnaire that "a complete ban on handguns is not politically practicable" but reasonable restrictions should be imposed.

His legislative record in Illinois shows strong support for gun restrictions, such as limiting handgun purchases to one a month, but no attempts to ban them. Today, he stands by his support for controls while trying to reassure hunters that he has no interest in interfering with their access to firearms.

Obama’s presidential campaign contends that voters can’t learn anything about his views from the 1996 questionnaire, which was for an Illinois good-government group known as the IVI-IPO. Aides say Obama did not fill out the questionnaire and instead it was handled by a staffer who misrepresented his views on gun control, the death penalty and more.

"Barack Obama has a consistent record on the key issues facing our country," said spokesman Ben LaBolt. "Even conservative columnists have said they’d scoured Obama’s record for inconsistencies and found there were virtually none."

IVI-IPO officials say it’s inconceivable that Obama would have let a staffer turn in a questionnaire with incorrect answers. The group interviewed Obama in person about his answers before endorsing him in that 1996 legislative race, and he didn’t suggest then, or anytime since, that the questionnaire needed to be corrected, they said.

Since he came to Washington, one piece of legislation that raises questions is the USA Patriot Act, the security measure approved after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

When he ran for the Senate, Obama called the act a "shoddy and dangerous law" that should be replaced. After he took office, the Senate considered an update that Obama criticized as only a modest improvement and one that was inferior to other alternatives.

Still, Obama ended up voting for that renewal and update of the Patriot Act.

Another disputed issue is health care.

Obama was asked in the 1996 questionnaire whether he supported a single-payer health plan, in which everyone gets health coverage through a single government program. The response was, "Yes in principle," and probably best to have the federal government set up such a program instead of the state.

Today, health care is a hot issue, and Obama does not support creating a single government program for everyone. In fact, rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards have criticized his health proposal for potentially leaving millions of people uninsured because they wouldn’t be forced to buy insurance.

Political analysts don’t see much danger for Obama in the changes. They aren’t major shifts akin to Republican Mitt Romney’s changes on abortion and gun control, so voters aren’t likely to see the senator as indecisive or calculating.

"I think they allow for some adjustment," said Dante Scala, a political science professor at the University of New Hampshire. "It depends on whether they’re changing the core of what they’re about."

In the general election, the Republican nominee would be more likely to go after the first-term senator on another front.

"If Obama is the Democratic candidate, I don’t think the Republicans will be attacking him on a particular issue," said Dianne Bystrom, director of the Center for Women and Politics at Iowa State University. "They’d be attacking him on his experience."

Obama’s Democratic opponents, concerned about turning off voters who dislike negative campaigning, haven’t been aggressively using his shifts against him. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign does quietly argue that they amount to a pattern that should concern the public.

Clinton spokesman Phil Singer noted Obama’s positions on handguns, health care and the Patriot Act. "Voters will ultimately decide whether these are significant shifts in his views or not," he said.

One area where Obama’s campaign acknowledges his views have changed is on the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages. In January 2004, Obama said he was opposed to repealing the law. By February, one month later, he supported a repeal.

His campaign says Obama always thought the Defense of Marriage Act was a bad law but didn’t believe it needed to be repealed. After hearing from gay friends how hurtful the law was, he decided it needed to be taken off the books.

(© 2008 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)
http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/barack.obama.democrats.2.616645.html

I stopped reading after the second sentence since he’s done nothing that other politicians haven’t done, and I quite frankly get annoyed by people who copy long questions from other sources. Politicians will say whatever they think will get them more votes. And if he really has changed his mind on some issues, who cares? Aren’t people entitled to changed their minds? I doubt if you have identical views to what you had several years ago. I know I’ve changed my mind on stuff a few times.

Thumbs down Obama?

January 15th, 2010 9 comments

Record Suggests Obama’s Views Have Changed A Bit
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) ?
If he wanted, the Barack Obama of today could have a pretty good debate with the Barack Obama of yesterday.

They could argue about whether the death penalty is ever appropriate. Whether it makes sense to ban handguns. They might explore their differences on the Patriot Act or parental notification of abortion.

And they could debate whether Obama has flip-flopped, changed some of his views as he learned more over the years or is simply answering questions with more detail and nuance now that he is running for president.

The Democratic senator from Illinois hasn’t made any fundamental policy shifts, such as changing his view on whether abortion should be legal. But his decade in public office and an Associated Press review of his answers to a questionnaire show positions changing in smaller ways.

Taken together, the shifts could suggest a liberal, inexperienced lawmaker gradually adjusting to the realities of what could be accomplished, first in the Illinois Legislature and then the U.S. Senate.

On the other hand, political rivals could accuse him of abandoning potentially unpopular views or of trying to disguise his real positions.

Take the death penalty.

In 1996, when he was running for a seat in the Illinois Senate, Obama’s campaign filled out a questionnaire flatly stating that he did not support capital punishment. By 2004, his position was that he supported the death penalty "in theory" but felt the system was so flawed that a national moratorium on executions was required.

Today, he doesn’t talk about a moratorium and says the death penalty is appropriate for "some crimes — mass murder, the rape and murder of a child — so heinous that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage."

Then there’s another crime-related issue, gun control.

That 1996 questionnaire asked whether he supported banning the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. The campaign’s answer was straightforward: "Yes." Eight years later, he said on another questionnaire that "a complete ban on handguns is not politically practicable" but reasonable restrictions should be imposed.

His legislative record in Illinois shows strong support for gun restrictions, such as limiting handgun purchases to one a month, but no attempts to ban them. Today, he stands by his support for controls while trying to reassure hunters that he has no interest in interfering with their access to firearms.

Obama’s presidential campaign contends that voters can’t learn anything about his views from the 1996 questionnaire, which was for an Illinois good-government group known as the IVI-IPO. Aides say Obama did not fill out the questionnaire and instead it was handled by a staffer who misrepresented his views on gun control, the death penalty and more.

"Barack Obama has a consistent record on the key issues facing our country," said spokesman Ben LaBolt. "Even conservative columnists have said they’d scoured Obama’s record for inconsistencies and found there were virtually none."

IVI-IPO officials say it’s inconceivable that Obama would have let a staffer turn in a questionnaire with incorrect answers. The group interviewed Obama in person about his answers before endorsing him in that 1996 legislative race, and he didn’t suggest then, or anytime since, that the questionnaire needed to be corrected, they said.

Since he came to Washington, one piece of legislation that raises questions is the USA Patriot Act, the security measure approved after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

When he ran for the Senate, Obama called the act a "shoddy and dangerous law" that should be replaced. After he took office, the Senate considered an update that Obama criticized as only a modest improvement and one that was inferior to other alternatives.

Still, Obama ended up voting for that renewal and update of the Patriot Act.

Another disputed issue is health care.

Obama was asked in the 1996 questionnaire whether he supported a single-payer health plan, in which everyone gets health coverage through a single government program. The response was, "Yes in principle," and probably best to have the federal government set up such a program instead of the state.

Today, health care is a hot issue, and Obama does not support creating a single government program for everyone. In fact, rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards have criticized his health proposal for potentially leaving millions of people uninsured because they wouldn’t be forced to buy insurance.

Political analysts don’t see much danger for Obama in the changes. They aren’t major shifts akin to Republican Mitt Romney’s changes on abortion and gun control, so voters aren’t likely to see the senator as indecisive or calculating.

"I think they allow for some adjustment," said Dante Scala, a political science professor at the University of New Hampshire. "It depends on whether they’re changing the core of what they’re about."

In the general election, the Republican nominee would be more likely to go after the first-term senator on another front.

"If Obama is the Democratic candidate, I don’t think the Republicans will be attacking him on a particular issue," said Dianne Bystrom, director of the Center for Women and Politics at Iowa State University. "They’d be attacking him on his experience."

Obama’s Democratic opponents, concerned about turning off voters who dislike negative campaigning, haven’t been aggressively using his shifts against him. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign does quietly argue that they amount to a pattern that should concern the public.

Clinton spokesman Phil Singer noted Obama’s positions on handguns, health care and the Patriot Act. "Voters will ultimately decide whether these are significant shifts in his views or not," he said.

One area where Obama’s campaign acknowledges his views have changed is on the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages. In January 2004, Obama said he was opposed to repealing the law. By February, one month later, he supported a repeal.

His campaign says Obama always thought the Defense of Marriage Act was a bad law but didn’t believe it needed to be repealed. After hearing from gay friends how hurtful the law was, he decided it needed to be taken off the books.

(© 2008 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)
http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/barack.obama.democrats.2.616645.html

I stopped reading after the second sentence since he’s done nothing that other politicians haven’t done, and I quite frankly get annoyed by people who copy long questions from other sources. Politicians will say whatever they think will get them more votes. And if he really has changed his mind on some issues, who cares? Aren’t people entitled to changed their minds? I doubt if you have identical views to what you had several years ago. I know I’ve changed my mind on stuff a few times.

Barack Hussein Obama, the Annointed One?

January 15th, 2010 4 comments

Why is everyone in the media falling all over themselves to paint this clown in a positive light? He’s nothing but an ultra leftwing extremist.

His voting record certainly displays the ideology characteristic of an far left liberal. Obama favors abortion, socialized medicine, and Affirmative Action. Obama sponsored a bill in the Illinois legislature requiring local police departments in Illinois to record the race of anyone stopped for questioning so that the data can be used to track the occurrence of racial profiling. He opposes a $2,000 tax credit for retirement and has voted against private gun ownership, mandatory sentencing and the death penalty. He abstained from voting about an abortion parental notification bill. Obama is soft on crime. In 2001, he voted against a bill that added extra penalties for crimes committed in furtherance of gang activities. In 1999, he was the only state senator to vote against a bill prohibiting early prison release for criminal sexual abusers

So it seems. He speaks well, looks good on TV & hasn’t acconplished a thing. It’s called the JFK gambit.