THE DEATH PENALTY

Now that Trump has reinstated the Federal death penalty statute, I thought it’d be a good time to share some thoughts about where I stand on the issue.

1.     Anyone who attempts to inject “pro-life” in a discussion of the death penalty is either attempting to deliberately mislead you or doesn’t understand EITHER issue.

a.      “Pro life” is as specific a term as “pro choice”. “Pro life” is specific to the abortion issue and is not applicable to other issues. “Pro choice” is specific to abortion as well. If I was to suggest that, because you, Mr./Mrs. Liberal, believe that big game trophy hunting should be banned, or that smoking in public places should be banned, or that carbon emissions should be banned, then you cannot claim to be “pro choice”, I would be wrong in the application of that term. Likewise, anyone claiming, as Alyssa Milano just did, that, in supporting the death penalty, a  person has, “…lost the right to pull your, 'pro-life' narrative-talking-point- b------t with me…”, is wrong in the application of the term “pro life”. (In the case of Milano’s comments, I’ll confidently side with the ‘doesn’t understand EITHER issue’ explanation).

2.     The death penalty IS, without question, contemplated in the Constitution. It’s right there in the Fifth Amendment, which, in part, states, “…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”. In other words: with due process of law, a person CAN be deprived of life.

3.     Erich Reimer penned an opinion piece for Townhall.com, https://townhall.com/columnists/erichreimer/2019/07/19/capital-punishment-is-government-overreach-on-our-liberty-n2550320 . It is worth reading, not because I agree with his opinion, but rather because I DON’T agree with his opinion (if you are not educating yourself on both sides of an argument, you are not educating yourself; you are indoctrinating yourself). A couple specific points of disagreement:

                                               i.     Comparing the United States to North Korea, the PRC, etc, is meaningless. Some of these countries also call themselves “republics” (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, People’s Republic of China, etc). Does that make the republic we have in America a Communist country? Nonsense.

                                              ii.     Reamer argues that the government is able to “…deprive a citizen of something as fundamental as one’s own very life.” This is simply not accurate. In the case of the death penalty, the person being executed deprives THEMSELVES of their own life.

                                            iii.     Reimer argues that the death penalty was contemplated in times far more “savage” than our current, civilized, society. I beg to differ. Read the headlines on any particular day, and the horrors of today’s society are evident. The five persons scheduled for execution, between December 2019 and January 2020 are perfect examples. (https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/25/us/five-inmates-federal-executions/index.html )

                                            iv.     Reamer argues that our society is far removed from such historical horrors as “The Great Purge” (Soviet Union; two years, 750k killed) and the “Reign of Terror” (France; one year, 40k killed). I’d argue that abortion law, which has cost the lives of at least 61 million (aprox. 1.3 million/year) unborn children, is FAR worse.

4.     The Catholic Church, currently, argues against the death penalty on the grounds that incarceration protects society from the worst of society. I disagree completely. An example: https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-aryan-brotherhood-prison-gang-federal-investigation-20190606-story.html.  Another example can be found in the Willie Horton case (while Horton did not kill anyone when furloughed, it is certainly that he retained the capacity to do so). In addition, while the Church (and others) make this argument, they seem unconcerned with the brutal rapes and murders that take place, regularly, within prison walls.

5.     The essential difference between abortion and the death penalty is simply this:

                                               i.     Abortion punishes (by putting to death) a child who is the result of actions taken by others.

                                              ii.     The death penalty punishes (by putting to death) a person who has CHOSEN to commit an act that carries with it the possible consequence of forfeiting their life.

Hopefully, this explains a) my position on the death penalty and b) why the death penalty is a fundamentally different argument than abortion. But it is also important to understand why Democrats oppose the death penalty, while staunchly supporting abortion. This, too, is simple:

-       In opposing the death penalty, Democrats take the opportunity to weaken what is clearly contemplated in the Constitution. They attack the First and Second Amendments, the Electoral College, etc, with the same ‘slippery slope’. Their long term goal, of course, is to render the Constitution meaningless, since they cannot outright abolish it.

-       In opposing the death penalty, Democrats’ desire to seek what is the common denominator in their legislation: elimination of personal responsibility. Abolishing the death penalty would relieve the convicted of the most severe punishment for a crime in which they voluntarily engaged. (This also explains their position on abortion: to seek the relief from personal responsibility of persons who, for the most part, engaged freely in choice. Of course, a discussion is certainly warranted in cases of involuntary incest and rape, but that is for another post….).

Marxism, by the numbers

The “Green New Deal”, which, by the way, is endorsed by EVERY Democrat candidate currently running in 2020, represents the ultimate dream for Liberals; by that, I mean, of course, Socialists (by THAT, I mean Democrats). It is a pie-in-the-sky manifesto of Marxist wealth confiscation, loaded with lots of promises and precisely ZERO benefits. It is government everything, virtually eliminating private……anything.

In short, it IS a demand for Statism. And the message from Democrats is absolutely clear: if you put us in charge, we WILL take everything you have!

Of course, Democrats are busy telling us that we’ll lose no freedom and “no, this is not Socialism”, but consider:

-       - What happens to the person who says, “No, I will NOT upgrade my home (or business) to environmental standards.”?

-      -  What happens to the people who insist on NOT giving up beef?

-       - What happens to the people who refuse to give up their gas-guzzling car?

I’ll tell you exactly what will happen: the government will FORCE you to comply. Period. Don’t think this could ever happen? Try not paying your taxes and see what happens.

But, folks need to understand HOW the Democrats plan on making captives of the American people:

BREAK US, FINANCIALLY.

Anyone remember when President Reagan REFUSED to take SDI (the Strategic Defense Initiative…. “Star Wars”) off the table during the nuclear arms talks? Ever wonder why? Ever wonder why we had such a massive military buildup during that administration? The reason was as simple as it was brilliant: to force the U.S.S.R. to spend against us and, in doing so, break their financial back.

And it worked. The U.S.S.R. collapsed.

That is precisely what Democrats wish to do. But, this time, to US.

Should Democrat seize control of the government, they WILL slowly and steadily grow until we can no longer sustain that growth. At that point, we will be powerless to resist. At that point, we won’t be “subjects”, we will be captives.

If you run the numbers on what the 2020 candidates are already proposing, you’ll gain a VERY clear picture of this goal and it’s timetable:  Consider some numbers:            

-       - “New Green Deal”: $9.4 Trillion/year https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/the-green-new-deal-scope-scale-and-implications/

-       - Medicare For All: $3.2 Trillion/year. (Based on current cost)

These two programs, alone, will cost taxpayers $12.6 Trillion per year. Then add some current programs:

-       - Social Security: $1.9 Trillion (CBO)

-       - Federal Pensions: $1.0 Trillion (CBO)

-       - Welfare: $356 Billion (CBO)

-       - Interest on the debt: $262 Billion (CBO)

-       - Education: $156 Billion (CBO)

These add another $3.67 Trillion per year.

Now, because they are Liberals and, well, you HAVE to cut SOMEWHERE….

-       - Let’s go ahead and END the Military.

-       - Let’s ALSO end ALL Discretionary Spending.

-       - Let’s ALSO dump:

o   Energy and Environment spending

o   Housing and Community spending

o   Transportation spending

o   Food and Agriculture spending

o   Veterans’ benefits

o   Science spending

o   International affairs spending

Where does this leave us? With a Federal Budget of $16.3 Trillion. (And, each year, this number will grow.)

To put this in perspective, consider two numbers:

-         -  The 2019 Federal Budget: $4.4 Trillion (CBO)

-          - The total personal income of ALL U.S. citizens, combined: $16 Trillion. https://www.statista.com/statistics/216756/us-personal-income/

In other words: Democrats are proposing to spend 100% of the TOTAL income of the United States while STILL running a $3 Billion DEFICIT. PER YEAR.

President Trump, in his first two years in office, has begun the process of dismantling the Democrats’ march toward a Marxist state. THIS is why they hate him AND his supporters. If he allowed to continue, he represents their greatest threat: a restoration of the Constitution and a freed citizenry.

2020 will be the MOST important election in our lifetime.

A letter to the (so-called) pro-Darwin “science believers”

NOTE

Every year, around January 22^nd, I pen a piece about abortion; the slavery of today and the latest testament to the Democrat Party’s long history of legislated discrimination. To me, the abortion issue is THE MOST IMPORTANT Human Rights issue today. It is, therefore, the most important political and legal issue of our time.

To date (since January 22^nd, 1973) America has murdered 61 million unborn children, all in the name of “women’s reproductive rights”. If legalized abortion should last as long as slavery, that number will rise to over 265 million.

I have to wonder whether, in the 61 million so far, whether the scientist who would have put an end to cancer was laid on that Socialist altar. Or perhaps a future President (indeed, given the circumstances, it is VERY likely that, had Barack Obama been born post-1973, HE would have been aborted). Perhaps Alzheimer’s or Huntington’s would have been cured by now? How many Nobel laureates? How many Marie Curies or Thomas Edisons? How many Harriet Tubmans, Abraham Lincolns or Frederick Douglas’? How many Dr. Martin Luther Kings?

So, each year I pen a piece in defense of life. But this year, instead of merely citing Human Rights (a concept foreign to Democrats), I would like to offer a different perspective on this horrific, inhuman, inhumane, issue…in terms that even a Democrat SHOULD understand.

…but, deliberately, willfully, won’t.

To the “pro-science”, Darwin types,

Perhaps you can help me out with a dilemma. In Iceland, Down’s Syndrome (a genetic anomaly characterized by an addition 23^rd Chromosome) has been nearly eliminated. How? Through selective abortion, of course ( https://www.cbsnews.com/news/down-syndrome-iceland/ ). In America, bills at the state and federal level are continually introduced to allow for similar legislation (along with other, selective, abortions); with the same “goal” in mind. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2018/03/05/down-syndrome-babies-are-taking-center-stage-in-the-u-s-abortion-fight/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d196e6b13ced).

In fact, Liberals in elected office, Planned Parenthood and in the “scientific community” frequently discuss to use of selective, targeted abortion in order to eliminate all manner of genetic anomalies.

…which brings us to Darwin.

Assuming you ACTUALLY know anything about Darwin’s work…

Can you please explain to me how you know….KNOW…..that Down’s Syndrome (or ANY other genetic anomaly) ISN’T a necessary genetic mutation; necessary, when acting in conjunction with future genetic mutations, to the evolution of mankind? Or, in keeping with Darwin’s theory of speciation, the evolution of mankind into a more benevolent, non-Earth-destroying animal?

The development of the eye still represents one of the great arguments against Darwin’s theory of speciation (a theory which, BTW, Darwin, himself, believed would…and COULD….never be proven). In order to possess a functioning eye, the following two possibilities must have existed:

1.     ALL parts of the eye would have to have mutated simultaneously. At the very least:

a.      The Cornea

b.     The Aqueous Humor

c.      The Schlera

d.     The Iris

e.      The Pupil

f.      The Lens

g.     The Pupillary Musculature

h.     The Ciliary Body

i.       The Chloroid

j.       The Vitreous

k.     The Retinal Pigmented Epithelium

l.       Trabecular Network

m.   The Retina

n.     The Optic Nerve

o.     Bruch’s Membrane

p.     Associated changes in the skeletal structure, necessary to house the eye, the optic nerve, etc.

q.     Photoreceptors (Rod and Cone cells)

r.      Associated areas of the brain necessary to perceive and interpret signals sent by the Optic Nerve

2.     OR….. Any one of these, which would have to endure (genetically pass on) for countless generations while other mutations occur. Meanwhile, these singularities would be useless.

Though this is an example of another of Darwin’s theories, suppose, for a moment, that the finches of Galapagos Island had been targeted by Liberals. Would there be the diversity of beak shapes and sizes (diversity that, BTW, allows them to better exist within their environment)? The rather obvious answer is: no. Any finch with the genetic possibility of having a beak unlike the original finches would be eliminated. Aborted. So, by using the Liberal mentality, natural selection would be halted and finches would only have a single type of beak. Those finches, because of Liberals, would fail to adapt; fail to evolve. I guess it’s a good thing that those finches weren’t Iceland finches….

So, “pro-science” Darwin worshipers: Can you explain how you know, for sure, that you are not stopping the evolution of the human species? I would like to see your proof.

Sincerely,

Tim Hirota

Timothyhirota1@gmail.com

Post Script:

Once again, Liberals, in Iceland and right here in America, are proving that the Parties HAVEN’T “switched sides”. Liberals (Democrats) are, once again, suggesting that one (or more) humans (this time, based on their genetics) are not fully human and are, therefore, NOT entitled to the same protections under the law. This is EXACTLY the argument that drove the continued legalization of slavery. With slavery, race was the target. With abortion, stage of life is the target.

Democrats, through the years, have targeted race MANY times (slavery, anti-Civil Rights, Affirmative Action, etc). Democrats have targeted gender (anti-Suffrage), etc. If there is a vulnerable segment of humanity, Democrats WILL target it at some point. One day, age and infirmity will be their target (as we are seeing in, for example, Oregon, with healthcare).

The "Parties switched sides"? Sorry, but that's a LIE. Here's MORE proof....

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/john-dingell-how-restore-faith-government/577222/

In addition to their staunch support of all manner of legislated discrimination, from abortion to federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, to Affirmative Action, to “gay rights”, to “women’s rights”, etc, I’d like to present ANOTHER textbook example of how Democrats are flat out lying when they carp about the Parties “switching sides”:

John Dingell.

Dingell, the longest-serving member of Congress, is a classic example of Liberalism, the Liberal mindset and the Democrat Party as it has ALWAYS been and CONTINUES to be.

If you take time to read the attached article, it is crystal clear that Dingell is suggesting that the “smaller” states (less populated) should have NO say whatsoever in national matters (like….the Presidency). Further, Dingell suggests that, at least where elections are concerned, the First Amendment should be set aside and The People should have NO say.

Dingell goes on the state, clearly and highlighted, that America should END “minority rule” in our Legislative and Executive branches.

In other words: Dingell wants:

1.     Mob rule. One Party has the majority, the other has no say whatsoever. Let’s be clear about something: Dingell makes these statements, KNOWING that blacks, for instance, comprise around 13% of the population. He is, therefore, stating that blacks should have NO SAY in governmental matters; laws, elections, etc.

2.     ALL power, all decision making, all governance to be consolidated and decided in the most populous states. Sorry, Ohio (for instance), you have NO SAY in elections. Nor do YOU, North Dakota, Arizona, Colorado, etc. Dingell wants a country ruled by California, New York, Florida and Texas.

3.     Abolishment of the First Amendment. Yes, campaign contributions are a First Amendment protection, and Dingell wants to do away with them (by making them publicly-funded). In fact, if you think about what he is suggesting in his other statements, it is clear that he wants the MAJORITY PARTY in Government to decide to whom campaign monies go; the minority Party would have no say. Period.

Yes, folks, what Dingell is suggesting is that America be PERMANENTLY ruled by one Party, who would possess 100% power and 100% authority; authoritarian rule.

(My guess is that Dingell wouldn’t feel quite the same if Republicans had held the House in 2018.)

Dingell, and all those who believe as he does….which IS the Democrat Party, past AND present…are a danger to our Republic. A danger, folks, about which we were warned by the Framers of our Constitution. In fact, from BEFORE the beginning of our Nation, when the Declaration of Independence was drafted, our Framers KNEW the enemy when they saw them: “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” The pure despotism envisioned by Dingell and, frankly, sought by the Democrat Party, is WHY the Bill of Rights exists; to RESTRICT the reach of Government and ensure that The People retain ultimate control. The right to vote, along with The Second Amendment, are the tools that back that power. And what Dingell desires…..what the Democrat Party desires…is the abolishment of those tools.

If Dingell REALLY wants to abolish something, how about he advocate to abolish the first sentence in the Seventeenth Amendment? Let’s go back to how the Senate was SUPPOSED to be seated: as appointed by the governors of each state. Or how about abolishing the Federal income tax?

How about it, Dingell?

The Bomber Suspect.....

THE BOMBER SUSPECT

Since the first “bomb” was discovered near the house of George Soros, my personal suspicion was that it was a set up, designed to garner sympathy for a Leftist (Soros), reverse the momentum of the 2018 election and create a circumstance to blame Trump. Certainly, there are PLENTY of examples of Liberals hoaxing tragic events in order to accomplish their goals, from the Brett Kavanaugh nomination to Tawana Brawley, from Lena Dunham to Yasmin Seweid.

Then the list of bombs grew. All were being sent to prominent Democrats and Liberals who had one thing in common, besides their misguided ideology: outspoken hatred of President Trump.

At that point, I posted my belief that this series of events was a set up. This was a “Hail Mary” play by Democrats (not the leadership, but by supporters) to achieve what their leadership has been fundamentally unable to achieve: to halt Trump’s and Conservatism’s momentum; it’s historic shift BACK to the Constitutional and rule of law. My belief in the set up was based on a couple issues:

1.     The “Right” has no history of terrorism; specifically, bombings, in this country. Terrorism is OWNED by two groups: Socialists and Anarchists. Examples of each include Bill Ayres (who helped get Obama started in politics) and Timothy McVeigh.

2.     The bombs, themselves, seemed designed to be found. For instance, they were sent in envelopes rather than boxes (which would have AT LEAST made detection more difficult.

It, to me, had all the marks of a ‘maskirovka’.

Then….they caught a suspect. And, IMMEDIATELY, the media jumped on suspect’s “obvious” love of President Trump (social media, van, voter registration, etc). And certainly, this nutcase DOES seem to be an insane, right wing, Trump-adoring, domestic terrorist.

But the more I read, the more my suspicions grew.

(Now, I’ll state, right now, that I might be dead wrong. It CERTAINLY wouldn’t be the first time!)

Based on what has been revealed so far…..yes, VERY early in the investigation…this continues to smell like a set up, designed to achieve the goals mentioned above. And, as it stands now, Democrats have a slam-dunk issue with which they and the media can hammer home an election message. They only need to make this the ONLY “newsworthy” issue through November 6^th. And they only have to keep ANY further investigative discovery from being revealed until then as well. After that, as Roy Moore and Christine Ford know all too well, this issue will become a “nothing to see here”…

But again, as it stands right now, quite a few things make no sense to me, and I hope that, as this investigation continues, these issues will be addressed:

1.     The suspect registered as “Republican” in 2012.

a.      Did he vote in 2012? And, for whom?

b.     How was he registered previous to 2012?

c.      What nationality is listed on his voter registration? (more on this later)

d.     He lives in Miami-Dade county, which, in 2016, voted 63/34 Clinton vs Trump; a VERY Liberal county.

2.     ONE fingerprint found? Of all the devices found, only ONE fingerprint found; and evidently, of sufficient forensic quality to positively ID the suspect. So, he decided to NOT wear gloves on this one device?

3.     Several stickers on his van featured crosshairs placed over the faces of Hillary Clinton and President Obama. How is it that the Secret Service had not been involved previous to his capture?

4.     The suspect lives in Miami-Dade, yet the stickers on his van look brand new (as does his van)

a.      When did he purchase the van?

b.     How old are the stickers?

c.      Why wasn’t he cited for obstructed view of his front, passenger-side window?

5.     Suspect has a previous arrest for bomb threat.

a.      What are the circumstances of that threat?

6.     Is there a history of mental illness? Certainly, based on discovery, so far, the suspect has a LONG history of police interaction.

7.     The suspect ID’s himself as a Native American and worked for a catering company called “Native American Catering Company”.

a.      Why wasn’t Liz Warren a target?

b.     Are any of the stickers on his van that of Liz Warren?

8.     At least two people (a former employer and a defense attorney who represented him in his various arrests) stated that the suspect NEVER discussed politics. It would seem that his ONLY vehicles for political action were social media and his van?

9.     How far back do his Twitter and FB feeds date? And who set them up?

a.      When I took a quick look, I found a FB page that only contained posts from within an HOUR of his arrest.

10.  Why no bomb to Gillum? After all, Gillum is running for Governor of Florida.

Under normal circumstances, I am a huge believer in allowing an investigation run before drawing any conclusions. And, even with this case, I conclude nothing.

BUT, because of it’s proximity to the election date, and its odd circumstances, mixed with my personal suspicion, I feel compelled to voice my concerns now, this early in the investigation.

If I am proven wrong, then I’m wrong, and this guy is just some nut, believing he’s doing what Trump “wants him to do”; not unlike James Hodgkinson, believing he was doing the bidding of Democrats.

If, however, I’m right, then we have unequivocal proof that Socialists will stop at nothing in order to achieve their goals and, in this case, sway an election