America's Future under Obama

America's Future under Obama

 

Now that various polls have indicated many Americans believe Barack Hussein Obama is the worst president since World War II, if not the worst president in America’s history, facts many of us have known for five and a half years, the question still remains as to where this proven lawless leader of the Free World will lead our country over the course of the next 30 months.

 

By all objective indications, our prospects are bleak, at least for those of us who love this country and who genuinely fear this president’s true motivations and hidden intentions.

Setting aside the obvious, his proven incompetence on the economy, in international relations, in securing our borders and, his most flagrant failure, in defending and preserving the Constitution, the former neighborhood organizer, a euphemism for local agitator, Obama still has miles to go before accomplishing his grandest goal, the dissolution of the United States as we now know it and re-establishing this nation as an entity little different from the Third World. 

And, it’s not as if he didn’t warn us of his plans in advance.

In his unscripted contention that Americans should share our wealth and in his stated dedication to the principle of “fundamentally transforming the United States of America,” (October 2008, Columbia, Mo), candidate Obama had laid out the blueprint for his vision of our future. 

After his handlers got ahold of him, Obama retracted his insistence on fundamentally changing a country not needing such major change, but he has never retracted his commitment to wealth-sharing nor his belief that America was no more exceptional than any other country on the planet, nor his obsession with the ghost of white racism and feigned ignorance of pandemic black, criminal racism.

Lately, too, he has been showing clear signs of his paranoia, (“There’s no doubt that there’s some folks who just really dislike me because they don’t like the idea of a black president”), an unsettling mental adjunct to his known egotistical nature.

This all constitutes a damning reflection on the democratic process in that so many Americans were apparently not listening to his words, failed to understand their import, or didn’t give a damn either way.

So, where do we go from here, deep into Obama’s second and, constitutionally, final term? . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=38079.)

Defending Capital Punishment

Defending Capital Punishment

 

Opponents of executing degenerate criminals convicted of depraved acts against their fellow human beings, acts which by their heinous nature are committed against their communities and civilized society itself, defend their opposition on four bases: the inhumanity of capital punishment, its discriminatory use against minorities, its irreversibility, and the fact the only other nations that still impose death penalties are Third World, often dictatorial, countries.

None of those objections hold any water.

The following represents not as much a defense of capital punishment, an issue on which I happen to be personally ambivalent, but rather a cursory review of the arguments on both sides of that contentious topic. 

Admittedly, I’ve lately been leaning in favor of permanently removing murderous  creatures from the face of the Earth if for no other reason than that their removal would effectively make them unable to repeat their mayhem.

INHUMANITY. Granted, whether conducted publicly or stealthily, executions can be grotesque affairs as evidenced by the recent botched, non-lethal injection last month of Clayton Lockett in Oklahoma, which caused Lockett to endure a gruesome death lasting 43 minutes–after he was convicted of kidnapping, raping, beating, trying to bury alive, and then using a shotgun to finish off 19-year-old Stephanie Neiman in 2000.

That particular execution would seem cruel and inhumane until one considers the extremely cruel and viciously inhumane offenses Lockett inflicted on an innocent, defenseless teenager.

America’s justice system does not operate on the ancient Code of Hammurabi’s principle of “an eye for an eye” and accords capital defendants every conceivable right of defense, appeal, and extended time to seek re-trial.  (Lockett was on death row for fourteen years, the average duration for convicted murderers in American prisons.) 

However, most Americans do believe that criminals deserve punishment in accordance with the law and commensurate with the barbarity of their crimes. . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=37326.)