The Urban Grind

My friend Brian summed it up best about the Left:

Yes, you are right. At a minimum they are at fault through their inaction. They are on this constant jihad against guns and against any form of deterrent like the death penalty (or even life in prison/in a mental institution), but they are constantly trying to shove compassion and mercy towards scum of the earth down our throats. Then, when one of their darling monsters goes berzerk, it’s the “right-wing”‘s fault for being “intolerant” and supporting the Second Amendment. It’s a win-win situation for them.

Of course the only thing that might deter these creatures would be a universally carrying public, but the left would rather kill their own mothers (no pun intended in this case) than agree to such a thing.

I’m not surprised that Barack Obama’s candidate for the position Supreme Court Justice has described her success as a product of affirmative action. Also, I’m sure you all remember how she openly stated that with the “richness” of her Latina heritage, she would make better decisions than white men.

So I don’t think anyone should be surprised that Judge Sotomayor believes that denying felons the right to vote while they’re still in prison is racist.

Sotomayor’s position came in a terse dissent to the 2006 case Hayden v. Pataki. The case argued that New York’s law barring convicted felons from voting until they are released from prison or complete parole is racist and thus unconstitutional. Its supporters made this argument on the grounds that “[m]ore than 80% of the New Yorkers disenfranchised…are Blacks or Latinos, who lose their right to vote at more than ten times the rate of other citizens.” Plaintiff Joseph “Jazz” Hayden, before he began his humanitarian crusade on behalf of the disenfranchised, was convicted in 1987 of stabbing a sanitation worker to death.Most Second Circuit Court of Appeals judges disagreed with him, but Sotomayor found Hayden’s objection supported by the “plain terms” of the Voting Rights Act.

As the saying goes, don’t do the crime if you still want to vote. Anway, moving along…

Judge Sotomayor also believes that capital punishment is racist.

Frankly, it’s not enough to go after Sotomayor for being a racist, as the spineless Republicans have been hinting.

Conservatives need to drive home the fact that Sotomayor, and other lefty elites are using America’s criminal underclass to terrorize working and middle class Americans, to ensure this country stays in the hands of Democrats.

We already know that Obama wants to gut our military and make nice with all the dictators of the world instead. But Obama also has a soft spot for domestic criminals, especially if they’re minorities.

One of the first things Obama would do as president is repeal mandatory minimum sentences for crack and other drug offenders to “reduce the ineffective warehousing” of such criminals, according to his website. He favors “drug rehabilitation” over incarceration for even “a second-time offender,” according to a 2007 interview he gave to the Michigan Chronicle, Detroit’s second-largest African-American newspaper.

Decriminalizing pot is also on the table. “We need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws,” said Obama, who admits to smoking weed and doing “a little blow” as a young man.

As an Illinois state senator, Obama voted to weaken penalties on gangbangers who deal drugs in schools.

He also wants to rehabilitate inmates through prison-to-work programs. Obama’s pet charity, ACORN, has such a program. It hired 59 inmates at its Las Vegas office this year. They proceeded to fraudulently register voters using the names of Dallas Cowboys football stars. A police affidavit quoted a supervisor describing them as “lazy crack-heads” who just wanted money for drugs.

ACORN and Obama have been working to restore voting rights for felons, which would be another priority of his administration. “At a minimum,” Obama told the black Detroit paper, “those who serve their sentences should be re-enfranchised.”

In Illinois, he unsuccessfully sponsored a measure to expunge some criminal records. He thinks they are used as a “stigma” against blacks.

Obama also wants to outlaw police use of racial descriptions as a means to capture suspects, including Middle-Eastern terrorists. As a U.S. senator, he’s already co-sponsored federal legislation to ban “racial profiling.”

At the same time, he wants to limit your right to protect yourself from criminals by permanently banning assault weapons, among other gun-control measures to de-”cling” you from your guns.

As a state lawmaker, Obama supported a ban on the sale and transfer of all forms of semi-automatic firearms, along with a bill limiting handgun purchases to one a month. In a 1996 questionnaire supplied by a liberal Chicago nonprofit group, he answered “yes” to supporting legislation to “ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.”

Obama fought a bill in the Illinois senate that would send youth who commit a second violent felony to prison. He fought to keep even the most violent juvenile offenders out of the adult system.

Instead, “We must provide more ladders to success for young men who fall into lives of crime,” he said at the Denver convention. One ladder he has in mind is funding contractors who train “ex-felons on projects that can benefit the community as a whole: insulating homes and offices to make them energy-efficient, perhaps.”

Terrorists could also catch a break. “I would vote to repeal the U.S. Patriot Act,” he said in 2003. Now he says he would merely repeal the parts of it that are “just plain wrong,” whatever those are.

Obama, who would as president have the power to pardon criminals, isn’t a big fan of U.S. laws in general, at least not as currently written. He thinks they are racist, along with the courts.

“We have certain sentences that are based less on the kind of crime you commit than on what you look like,” he told Howard University students last year. “It’s time to seek a new dawn of justice.”

“Laws are sometimes malleable,” he wrote two years ago, and he plans to “fix” what he sees as a “broken” criminal justice system. And he favors judges with the “empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American.”

That worries some legal analysts. “If Obama wins,” warns Northwestern University law professor Steven Calabresi, “we could possibly see the abolition of capital punishment and mass freeing of criminal defendants.”

In fact, Obama in the 1996 questionnaire responded “no” to supporting capital punishment. His website now calls for unspecified “reform” of the death penalty, which he contended in his book “does little to deter crime.”

Obama will, however, get tough on “hate crimes.” He plans to pack the criminal section of Justice’s Civil Rights Division with African-American prosecutors, and make “hate crime a priority.”

He will “reinvigorate federal civil-rights enforcement” by prosecuting alleged civil-rights abuses by local officials, such as the Jena, La., district attorney. “As president,” his website says, “Obama will ensure that the section vigorously pursues such cases.”

Now can someone please explain to me how exactly a person “falls into” a life of crime? Is there someone going around threatening to kill the families of all these young men if they don’t rob, rape, maim or kill? Whatever happened to free will, which all human beings possess? How about staying in school, getting a job, working hard, and keeping your pants zipped up?

Why haven’t McCain and Palin gone after Obama on this?

That’s what the Supreme Court is due to decide in the case of Kennedy v. Louisiana.

In a nutshell, the case is about one Patrick Kennedy (no apparent relation to Ted Kennedy and his depraved drunken family) who raped his eight year old step daughter, but did not kill her. Chief Justice Roberts, and Justice Scalia *seem* to be in favor of the death penalty. And of course that liberal old Justice Stephen Breyer seems to be taking the side of the rapist.

Justice Stephen Breyer expressed concern that “suddenly we will be in the business” of broadening the death penalty for crimes other than murder.

“I am not a moralist, I am a judge,” said Breyer.

What does he think most laws are, if not an expression of what a civilized society finds unacceptable? Rape, murder and theft are all illegal because they are morally wrong.

To their credit, the Supreme Court has ruled that President Bush cannot force the state of Texas to comply with the ruling of the International Court of Justice, and that illegal alien Jose Medellin can be executed for the rape and murder of two teenage girls.

Medellin was 18 when he participated in the June 1993 gang rape and murder of two Harris County, Texas, girls: Jennifer Ertman, 14, and Elizabeth Pena, 16. He was convicted of the crimes and sentenced to death.

Medellin’s lawyers argued he was not informed upon his arrest of his right to contact Mexican consular officials. Those officials were never able to meet with him until after his conviction.

About 43 other Mexican nationals awaiting execution in various states — including 13 in Texas — also will be affected by the high court ruling. Only Oklahoma has commuted a capital inmate’s sentence to life in prison in response to the international judgment.

The Mexican government filed an appeal against the United States with the International Court of Justice in January 2003, alleging violations of international law. Medellin filed his own federal and state appeals based on similar complaints as well as a claim of ineffective counsel. Medellin has the support of the European Union and several international human rights groups.

The ICJ ruled in 2004 the United States had violated the rights of the Mexican prisoners, in part because officials and prosecutors failed to notify their home countries, which could have provided legal and other assistance. The ICJ judges ordered the United States to provide “review and reconsideration” of the sentences and convictions of the Mexican prisoners.

Notice how these so-called human rights groups always get their knickers in a twist when justice is meted out to evil people. But whenever good people are killed, maimed and raped, they are nowhere to be found.

The sooner that Medellin gets the needle, the better!

The writers at the New York Times can’t bear the fact that the death penalty in Texas is legal.

DALLAS (Reuters) – Texas will almost certainly hit the grim total of 400 executions this month, far ahead of any other state, testament to the influence of the state’s conservative evangelical Christians and its cultural mix of Old South and Wild West.

Bwahahahah! There go those “EEEVIL barbaric” conservative Christians all acting like cowboys.

Notice how liberals always love to criticize the Wild West and cowboys, as though that’s a bad thing.

Like his predecessor, Governor Perry is a devout Christian, highlighting one key factor in Texas’ enthusiasm for the death penalty that many outsiders find puzzling — the support it gets from conservative evangelical churches.

There they go again with the devout Christian slur. Of course liberals are incapable of distinguishing between innocents and those who take innocent life. Conservatives on the other hand, are not plagued with this moral equivalence nonsense. They know right from wrong. And by executing those who take innocent life they are saying that they don’t tolerate such barbarity.

This is in line with their emphasis on individuals taking responsibility for their own salvation, and they also find justification in scripture.

“A lot of evangelical Protestants not only believe that capital punishment is permissible but that it is demanded by God. And they see sanction for that in the Old Testament especially,” said Matthew Wilson, a political scientist at Southern Methodist University in Dallas.

This Judeo Christian view of morality, of absolute right and wrong, drives liberals nuts.

Texas also stands at an unusual geographical and cultural crossroads: part Old South, with its legacy of racism, and part Old West, with a cowboy sense of rough justice.

If by rough justice, they mean no sympathy for criminals and no taking into account the criminal’s rough childhood or “institutionalized racism,” then I’m all for it.

Some critics say the South can be seen in the racial bias of death sentences with blacks more likely than whites to be condemned — though Texas is not alone on this score.

Over 41 percent of the inmates currently on death row in Texas are black, but they account for only about 12 percent of the state’s population.

It obviously never occurred to this writer that people are in jail for a reason. And it’s not “institutionalized racism.”

Support for capital punishment in Texas has also been attributed to the state’s high rates of violent crime, though it is not strikingly above the national average.

According to FBI statistics for 2005, the national rate of violent crime was 469.2 per 100,000 inhabitants while the same rate for murder and non-negligent manslaughter was 5.6. For Texas, the same figures were 529.7 and 6.2.

There they go again. A typical technique used by lefties is to throw out numbers about how the death penalty is not a deterrent, and how it has no effect on violent crime.

Well I have news for people with blood on their hands (and yes, I think people who are opposed to executing murderers have blood on their hands).

The purpose of capital punishment society’s way of saying that murder of innocents will not be tolerated, and that those who take innocent life must pay with their own. It’s not about vengeance.

Now buried way down in the article are numbers on how homicides in Texas have dropped in 2005.

The longer trend is a decline of homicides over the past 30 years with a peak of 2,652 in 1991 in Texas and 1,407 in 2005. And fewer murders should translate into fewer death sentences.

How about more death sentences=fewer murders, stupid!

Now since most Texans seem to support the death penalty, this libtard writer is obviously showing how “farshtunkt” he’s become by cheering on the criminal invasion from Mexico.

Demographics could help tilt the balance a bit further, as the state’s booming economy attracts outsiders — and potential jury members — from more liberal regions and as its Latino population grows rapidly.

“Demographics could change things as minority groups like Latinos are generally less enthusiastic about the death penalty,” said Dieter of the Death Penalty Information Center.

Oh keep dreaming!

A New York jury unanimously found Ronell Wilson guilty for the murder of two policemen in March of 2003.

The details are as follows:

Nemorin and Andrews, beloved family men revered for their bravery by colleagues, were each shot in the back of the head by Wilson during a gun buy-and-bust gone bad on March 10, 2003, on Staten Island.

Prosecutors argued that Wilson knew the victims were cops and killed them anyway to steal the $1,200 in buy money. Their bodies were dragged out of a blood-soaked auto and dumped in the street like garbage.

Now both of these policemen were African American. So where on earth are Al Shapton, Jesse Jackson and Charles Barron now? Obviously they don’t care when blacks kill other blacks.

And, this miscreant Wilson’s family has the nerve to act like the victims!

As the jury was leaving the packed courtroom, Wilson’s younger brother Daniel shouted at them, “You motherf—–s!” and Cheryl Wilson immediately clapped her hand over his mouth, muzzling him.

U.S. marshals surrounded the youth and escorted him out of the courtroom.

“Just because one family lost a member, does that mean it’s right that another family loses theirs?” Daniel Wilson told the Daily News outside. “If their families are hurting so bad, how the f–k could they stand by and say ‘Yes’ when another man’s life has to be taken.”

Obviously, these products of inferior breeding can’t understand the difference between killing for no reason, and making the killer of innocents pay with his life. And to think, there are people who sympathize with this animal!

Unfortunately, it will be years before Wilson actually gets the needle, being that his lawyers will file appeal after appeal.

So far, it’s looking like a done deal. And Saddam is now saying he’s prepared to become a martyr. Fine. Just don’t keep your 72 zip lock virgins waiting!

In fact, many Iraqis would love to send Saddam to his virgins, as hundreds of people are applying to be his hangman.

But hundreds of Iraqis have inquired about the hangman’s job. The adviser, Bassam al-Husseiny, told the US network ABC News that he received about eight to 10 phone calls a day — and 20 to 30 e-mails — by Iraqis who wanted to execute Saddam. The candidates came from all three of the country’s major religions and from all walks of life, he said — from high-level government officials to “the tea boy.”

Of course the so-called “Human Rights” organizations Amnastsy Inter-Shithole and Human Rights Watch are throwing a hissy fit. Unfortunately, they’re not the only ones. The Vatican is getting involved as well.

Cardinal Renato Martino, head of the Vatican’s Justice and Peace department, was quoted in Italy’s Repubblica newspaper on Thursday saying there was a chance for last-minute clemency for Saddam after an appeals court upheld his death sentence.

{snip}

Martino criticized the U.S. authorities at the time of Saddam’s capture in December 2003 for releasing TV pictures of soldiers checking his teeth “as if he were a cow”, images that he said needlessly humiliated the man.

The former papal envoy to the United Nations said there was “no doubt” that Saddam was responsible for mass murders, but that did not change the Church’s opposition to capital punishment.

“You can’t think of compensating for one crime with another one,” he said. Saddam was sentenced in November for crimes against humanity and the death penalty was upheld on Tuesday.

As a religious person, this man should understand the difference between the arbitrary killings of a vicious dictator vs. a death penalty imposed in response to those crimes. Instead, this Martino fellow sounds just like Cindy Sheehan and Michael Berg.

And of course, the left wing MSM is also against executing Saddam, which they condescendlingly refer to as “victor’s justice.”

It all goes to show you what liberalism does to people’s minds. Under this evil ideology, there is no difference between a vicious murderer, and a court that insists the killer pay for his carnage with his life.

By now, you all know that Saddam Hussein has been sentenced to hang by the end of January 2007.

Naturally, the MSM in the U.S. and around the world is not happy. The Gray Lady, admitted that Hussein got a fairer trial than he would have given his adversaries had the following to say.

From the beginning, the now dominant Shiite and Kurdish politicians have been determined to use Mr. Hussein?s trial and punishment to further their own political ends, as Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has continued to do in recent days.

{snip}

The appeals court that will now review the verdict can undo some of the damage by taking into account some of these deficiencies. At least, it should defer the carrying out of any death penalty long enough to allow the completion of a second trial, in which Mr. Hussein is charged with ordering genocidal massacres against the Kurds.

So how many people does the Times want to see dead before they approve of the death penalty for a vicious dictator?

For more on the foreign MSM’s reaction, click here and here.

At least that’s what the Washington Times (so much for being a right leaning paper) is trying to make out of one Antwuan Ball, whom they describe as a civic activist.

But, you’ll have to go all the way to the end of the glowing puff piece on Mr. Ball to find out why prosecutors are really seeking the death penalty.

Mr. Ball is accused of leading a violent street gang that sold hundreds of kilograms of crack cocaine in Southeast for more than a decade.

{snip}

Last month, the U.S. attorney’s office filed a notice of intent to seek the death penalty for Mr. Ball and David Wilson, accused of being leaders of the Congress Park Crew — a gang that resorted to assault and homicide to protect its drug trade in Southeast.

Only two death-penalty cases have proceeded to trial in the District since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976. Capital punishment is banned in the District, except in federal crimes.

So, if I understand this correctly, if you head up a drug dealing gang that kills people, you can avoid the death penalty by “counseling youths” and posing as a security guard?

I don’t think so. And pretty soon, we’ll be hearing from Jeanine Garafolo and Binaca Jagger about why this kid’s life should be spared. Stupid liberals!