Tag: Murder

GOVERNACIDE: The Gooferment should never have the power of life and death

Published on by reinkefjLeave a comment

https://nypost.com/2022/05/17/the-buffalo-massacre-screams-for-the-death-penalty/

The heinous Buffalo supermarket massacre screams for the death penalty
By Michael Goodwin
May 17, 202210:01pm

*** begin quote ***

Politicians, the media and citizens across the nation are united in denouncing the white man who slaughtered 10 black people at a Buffalo supermarket. There is also fury at how he was able to buy the rifle he used months after cops ordered a mental-health evaluation following an earlier threat to carry out a ­shooting.

Yet despite the anger and wall-to-wall media coverage, largely unsaid is what the punishment should be. That’s at least partially because New
York doesn’t allow the obvious answer — the death penalty. 

Although the Empire State has not carried out an execution since 1963, it had the law on the books for many years until 2007. So even if a
county district attorney wanted to seek the ultimate punishment in this case, the state legal code doesn’t allow it.

But federal law does. And if President Biden considers the massacre to be as heinous as he claimed in his Tuesday remarks in Buffalo, he will direct Attorney General Merrick Garland to have federal prosecutors take over the case and, if they win a conviction, seek the death penalty. 

*** end quote ***

I don’t care how “heinous” the crime, and I find this one to be abhorrent, I NEVER want the Gooferment to kill people.  

As a pro-life pro-choice little L libertarian, the Gooferment is immoral, ineffective, and inefficient. As well as untrustworthy. How often do we find that the Gooferment gets things wrong? 

In this particular case, the Gooferment and its “systems” failed to detect and stop this killer. 

Personally, I’d like to have an investigation of when drugs, if any, he was taking. SSRIs?

Let’s lock him up forever, but keep him alive to be studied.  And, as a constant reminder of the evil that he represents.

Besides capital cases, cost a small fortune and take decades. 

I’m only for the death penalty when a “Hannible Lector” type is too dangerous to keep alive.

—30—

POLITICAL: The debate is really NOT about “insurance”

Published on by reinkefjLeave a comment

http://peadarroe.wordpress.com/2012/02/24/a-woman-said

A Woman Said
Posted on February 24, 2012

*** begin quote ***

What follows was part of a discussion on a well known “social media site”.  I copied it because I thought it said a lot about a great divide in our country, the one between two kinds of people, two generations, two different world views, two different cultures.  It was occasioned by the appearance of a cartoon showing the President of these Untied States wearing the clerical robes of a pope.  It was s satirical cartoon designed for strong reactions, and it got them.  People objected to the artist’s robing Obama as the Catholic Pontiff, commented on his support for abortion and his refusal to recognize the conscience rights of Catholics.  Someone, a young woman, wrote:

I find it disturbing, but I’m mostly offended by the commentary it represents. I don’t like Obama, but I don’t find him to be any more “tyrannical” or arrogant than any other President we’ve had. Calling him a Communist really just illuminates one’s complete misunderstanding of communism, and the equation of abortion with the Holocaust as well as the implication that requiring insurance to cover birth control is equal to abortion, just pisses me off.

*** and ***

As for the requirement that private employer’s insurance policies cover contraception – I could go on at length about the necessity of hormonal birth control for many women (such as myself) for entirely NON-birth control related reasons (if I don’t take it, I get terrible cysts due to my endometriosis – cysts that may very well prevent me from getting pregnant in the future when I choose to) – but also that I don’t think an employer, whether or not it’s the Catholic church, should be making the medical decisions of its employees. Removing one area of coverage allows others to be chipped away at – and employers and insurance companies may find it in their interest to lower premiums by not covering many routine [JR: My emphasis.] and/or necessary procedures they chose not to agree with for whatever reason.

*** end quote ***

Stepping out from the pro-choice / pro-life debate for a moment, I’d suggest that we all focus for a moment on the word “routine”. To me that means, “ordinary and predictable”. And, are we talking about “insurance”? Where a bunch of folks with the same random risk profile pool their premiums to be paid out when that fire, flood, or tornado hits. Here we have a lady arguing that we, as a society, should “insure” “oil changes for our cars.” Where is the random disaster in an “oil change”? Went to aa Jiffy Lube / Oil Well / or some such place last week. In and out for under $100 in ½ hour. Now envision if it was insured. Call 1-800-thrid world country, file a report, yada yada. No way that was going to cost under $100 and less than ½ hour. In principle, it’s the same. Forcing “insurance companies” into the position of paying for “routine” stuff is just wrong. So, if this is NOT about “insurance”, then it must be about “politics”, propaganda, and manipulation. So this circles us back to the pro-life / pro-choice debate. Because it’s OBVIOUSLY NOT about “insurance”. imho. ymmv.

# – # – # – # – #