Archive for March, 2005

This article is so on the mark, I had to post it in its entirety.
I can’t agree more.
One word sums it up: Losers!


by Christopher Flickinger
Posted Mar 8, 2005

For the love of God, please remove those “Kerry/Edwards” bumper stickers from your cars and trucks! In case you didn’t get the memo, your side lost! It’s like you’re walking around with a big “L” on your forehead — Loser!

I’m not sure why you still have that sticker on your bumper. Maybe it’s been too cold outside for you to remove it. Maybe your post-election depression is so deep you can’t bring yourself to take it off. Maybe you’re living in denial. Maybe you’ve been too busy spreading lies and rumors about the future of Social Security and judicial nominations that you haven’t had enough time to get it off your vehicle.

Or maybe it’s even worse than I thought. Maybe you’ve tried, you’ve scrubbed, you’ve scratched, you’ve pulled and it just won’t come off. It’s stuck to the back of your Volvo or Voltswagen like a bloodthirsty parasite. But, then again, we are talking about John Kerry and John Edwards, two men who would have acted like ravaging bloodsuckers on the back of every U.S. citizen had they been elected.

Honestly, for your own self-dignity, it’s time to remove the Kerry/Edwards bumper stickers. Personally, I’m glad so many of you have left them on your vehicles. It’s makes it so much easier for me to point out and identify the idiots. If I pull-up to the drive-thru pharmacy and get cut-off by another car, normally I’d get upset. But, if I see they have a Kerry/Edwards sticker on their car, I immediately calm down and remind myself, “This person didn’t mean to cut me off. It’s just that they feel they’re entitled to health care.” On the highway, when I get behind someone who’s going less than 50 M.P.H. and they’re causing a tie-up, I’d normally lay on the horn. But, if I see their Kerry/Edwards sticker, I pause, take my hand away from the horn, and remind myself, “It’s not that they don’t know how to drive, it’s that they’re trying to conserve gas and preserve our environment by traveling at a slower speed.”

I mean, really, you’re doing me a public service by announcing your stupidity, but it still can’t be good for your own mental well-being and possibly your very own safety. Hardened criminals must also enjoy seeing who still proudly sports the sign of the jackass. Thugs can immediately identify which citizens don’t own a gun and won’t hold them responsible for their actions.

Simply put — the election is over. You lost. Get over it. Move on. Live in the “now.” Your candidates were wrong about the state of our economy. They were wrong when they said the Iraqi elections would fail. They were wrong about the war on terrorism. If it were up to them, our troops would be packing-up and moving-out in another three months. Do you think the war on terrorism will be over in three months?

Maybe a better question is, “Do you think three months from now people will still be driving around with Kerry/Edwards bumper stickers on their cars and trucks?” Yep, I think so, and it makes life a lot easier. Now, I don’t have to wonder, “What’s wrong with this guy?” I already know.

The Supreme Court of the United States has lost its collective mind.
The recent ruling that they handed down in regards to the death penalty is completely wrong.

They are telling us that a 17 year old is not mature enough to know the heinousness of their crimes.
Siting foreign countries in their ruling.

So, if a 17 year old is not mature enough to know that murder is wrong and what the consequences of this action is, then how can a 13 year old be mature enough to get an abortion without parental consent?

What they have effectively said to America, is that 17 year olds don’t know that their actions have consequences, but at the age of 18, all of a sudden they know.

A 13 year old can murder an unborn baby in the womb. They have the maturity for making that decision, but don’t know that murder is wrong?

The Constitution of the United States is being torn apart, piece by piece, by these radical judges on the bench.

From the major opinion of Justice Kennedy:

The overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty is not controlling here, but provides respected and significant confirmation for the Court’s determination that the penalty is disproportionate punishment for offenders under 18. See, e.g., Thompson, supra, at 830–831, and n. 31. The United States is the only country in the world that continues to give official sanction to the juvenile penalty. It does not lessen fidelity to the Constitution or pride in its origins to acknowledge that the express affirmation of certain fundamental rights by other nations and peoples underscores
the centrality of those same rights within our own heritage of freedom.
Pp. 21–25.


JUSTICE O’CONNOR, dissenting.
The Court’s decision today establishes a categorical rule forbidding the execution of any offender for any crime committed before his 18th birthday, no matter how deliberate, wanton, or cruel the offense. Neither the objective evidence of contemporary societal values, nor the Court’s moral proportionality analysis, nor the two in tandem suffice to justify this ruling.

SCALIA, J., dissenting.
In urging approval of a constitution that gave lifetenured judges the power to nullify laws enacted by the people’s representatives, Alexander Hamilton assured the citizens of New York that there was little risk in this, since “[t]he judiciary . . . ha[s] neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961).
What a mockery today’s opinion makes of Hamilton’s expectation, announcing the Court’s conclusion that the meaning of our Constitution has changed over the past 15 years—not, mind you, that this Court’s decision 15 years ago was wrong, but that the
Constitution has changed. The Court reaches this implausible result by purporting to advert, not to the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment, but to “the evolving
standards of decency,” ante, at 6 (internal quotation marks omitted), of our national society. It then finds, on the flimsiest of grounds, that a national consensus which could not be perceived in our people’s laws barely 15 years
ago now solidly exists. Worse still, the Court says in so many words that what our people’s laws say about the issue does not, in the last analysis, matter: “[I]n the end our own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty under the Eighth Amendment.”…..Consulting States that bar the death penalty concerning the necessity of making an exception to the penalty for offenders under 18 is rather like including old-order Amishmen in a consumer-
preference poll on the electric car. Of course they don’t like it, but that sheds no light whatever on the point at issue. That 12 States favor no executions says something about consensus against the death penalty, but nothing—absolutely nothing—about consensus that offenders under 18 deserve special immunity from such a
In other words, all the Court has done today, to borrow from another context, is to look over the heads of the crowd and pick out its friends….
We need not look far to find studies contradicting the Court’s conclusions. As petitioner points out, the American Psychological Association (APA), which claims in this case that scientific evidence shows persons under 18 lack the ability to take moral responsibility for their decisions, has previously taken precisely the opposite position before this very Court. In its brief in Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U. S. 417 (1990), the APA found a “rich body of research” showing that juveniles are mature enough to decide whether to obtain an abortion without parental involvement.

For the complete opinion of the court, go here.

There are a couple Justices that serve on the Supreme Court who actually understand the Constitution.
This very issue was brought to the court in 1989.
The ruling then?
The death penalty is not cruel and unusual punishment.

Siting international anything, in reference to the United States and our Constitution is tyranny. Judges that use their morality and look to foreign countries to affirm their opinion should be removed from the bench.

There needs to be a referendum by the people of the United States to limit the powers of the Supreme Court to that of law opinion and not changing the Constitution of the United States to suit their needs at that particular time the whim hits them.

E.J. Smith