Who knows best how to spend YOUR money? John Kerry, that’s who.

“A tax cut is non-targeted. If you put a tax cut into the hands of either a business or an individual today, there is no guarantee we can control them they’re going to invest their money. There’s no guarantee they’re going to invest their money in the United States. They’re free to go to invest anywhere that they want, if they choose to invest.

The fact is, none of those people are guaranteed to squander invest that money in any of the vacuous pet-project black-holes of sh** new projects that we are. So John Kerry government, Yes – Government, has the ability to be able to waste make a decision for you stupid rubes who lack the capacity that the private sector won’t necessarily make today.”

(I added emphasis and some minor edits)

So who is it that stands for individual freedom in this country? Who are the people that think YOU – not some jackass bureaucrat – can make a better decision on what you ought to do with YOUR money?

The fact of the matter is – I work very hard to make a living (the same cannot be said for John ‘marry-a-millionaire-and-billionaire’ Kerry), so I can freely invest my earnings in whatever I please. I don’t need John Kerry to decide how best I should handle MY MONEY.

Note what even Kerry inadvertently points this out:

“They’re [you are] free to go to invest anywhere that they [you] want, if they [you] choose to invest.”

Personal financial freedom. We can’t have that now, can we?

John ‘I want to spend your money on stupid crap’ Kerry: Tyrant of the Week:

kingJohnkerry

Advertisements

SCOTUS outlaws death penalty for child rape

The Supreme Court on Wednesday outlawed executions of people convicted of raping a child.

In a 5-4 vote, the court said the Louisiana law allowing the death penalty to be imposed in such cases violates the Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

“The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion.

In this case, proponents of the Louisiana law said the trend was toward the death penalty, a point mentioned by Justice Samuel Alito in his dissent.

“The harm that is caused to the victims and to society at large by the worst child rapists is grave,” Alito wrote. “It is the judgment of the Louisiana lawmakers and those in an increasing number of other states that these harms justify the death penalty.”

FULL ARTICLE

Note the crucial difference in the Justices opinions:

  • Kennedy feels that he gets to decide what Louisiana’s lawmakers should have decided.
  • Alito upholds the laws passed by the Louisiana legislature, and supports their judgement based on the local situation.

Again, what is the point of the legislative branch of government when the courts make up laws? Do we live in an oligarchy? What about federalism? The Legislature was set up so the people could decide what laws of the land were fair, not 9 unelected men in the supreme court.

I think judgment on crimes should be made on a case by case situation by local justice systems (see caveat at end of post), not the ‘one law to rule them all’ crap that justice Kennedy seems to support.

Plus, call me cold hearted, but I am certain that there are cases of child rape that more than justify the death penalty (read the horrid facts of this case at the bottom of this post). And what about repeat rape cases? In my opinion, I don’t think that the American taxpayer should have to pay to feed and shelter (the worst of these) pieces of human trash.

UPDATE: Ed Whelan unloads on Kennedy’s decision:

Kennedy’s 36 pages of insufferable blather amount to little more than a declaration that the majority doesn’t think that capital punishment is ever a fair penalty for the rape of a child—“no matter,” as Justice Alito puts it in his dissent, “how young the child, no matter how many times the child is raped, no matter how many children the perpetrator rapes, no matter how sadistic the crime, no matter how much physical or psychological trauma is inflicted, and no matter how heinous the perpetrator’s prior criminal record may be.” 

If I find time, I may focus more attention on Kennedy’s string of assertions.  For now, I’ll just call attention to the facts that occasioned Kennedy’s pronouncement that “[e]volving standards of decency must embrace and express respect for the dignity of the person”—the person whose dignity is the object of his concern being the rapist, not the victim and not other future victims.

GRAPHIC CONTENT WARNING (The following is a description of the facts of this case. I put them in white because they are graphic and shockingly horrid. You can select below to read them.): 

 The facts are graphic and awful.  Kennedy (not the justice) was charged with the aggravated rape of L.H., his then-8-year-old stepdaughter.  When police found L.H. some two hours after the attack, she was bleeding profusely from the vaginal area.  She was transported to the hospital, where she was discovered to have a laceration to the left wall of the vagina that “separated her cervix from the back of her vagina, causing her rectum to protrude into the vaginal structure.  Her entire perineum was torn from the posterior fourchette to the anus.  The injuries required emergency surgery.”  Shortly after he committed the rape, Kennedy called a colleague to ask “how to get blood out of a white carpet because his daughter had ‘just become a lady.’”

UPDATE: Some friends of mine brought up some great points that I think need expanding upon. First – it is of course important to have a some sort of national unity agreement on laws and punishment. Like one friend mentioned – If you have one tough state, and one wuss state – the crime will just move over to the wuss state. Plus – I am not for tossing the death penalty around willy nilly. The decision to to end a person’s life is as grave a decision as a judicial system probably ever encounters. We certainly don’t just want ‘the mob’ to decide what crimes deem what penalties. 

However, I do think that the certain heinous nature of some crimes do require severe punishment. The death penalty certainly should not be seen as retribution. Still, the fact that a person can absolutely devastate the life of a child, but so long as you don’t kill them in the process…

I guess my problem with this decision is that the SCOTUS makes it completely impossible for the death penalty to ever be warranted, regardless of the circumstances, in a rape case were the victim lives. It seems like a ‘one size fits all’ sort of ruling that may not be adequate to all circumstances.

I’ll have to keep mulling this one over. What do you think?

UPDATE: Great write-up on this over at Hotair.