Apparently, in the United States, an evil young woman can murder 2 babies and there’s absolutely no punishment for her crimes. California judges can just toss the cases out. Who the heck cares about defenseless babies anyhow? What sane people actually value life anymore? I mean, what an antiquated idea!
Seems like Holly Ashcraft is going to be free. Free to kill another baby in the near future, I can assume. She apparently had a child in 2004, showed up at the hospital, claimed the baby was stillborn and they never found a body. No big deal, right? Apparently not, as it seems she was never charged with any crime for that action. So, she has another baby…she claims it was stillborn as well. What does she do? She puts the body in a box and puts the box in a dumpster.
Two acts like this- only a crazy person will claim she’s innocent of murder. No one, and I mean NO ONE, has this happen to them twice! No one who isn’t evil (this woman IS, in fact, evil if the facts are as they seem) tosses their baby into a box and into a dumpster. That’s the act of an evil person.
I guess there’s often times no justice in this country. As the culture of death continues to be spread by secular forces around the nation and the world- we’re only going to see more of this. I see a day in the future where unwanted babies are simply murdered by their mothers who are ‘burdened’ by these infants…and the law won’t do anything to stop them.
Finally- how evil is Mark Geragos? This guy will try his best to get any murderer off as long as he can rake in the dough! What a despicable human being.
The Sheriff of LA County gave some remarks late today about his decision to release Paris Hilton from jail after a mere 3 days. According to the AP story, part of the reasoning was an unnamed medical condition and “overcrowding”.
Can someone explain the logic of this? I don’t think anyone on earth can. You break the law, a court/jury/whomever decides that jail time is the appropriate punishment…you get out in days because it’s too crowded? Why would any police force on earth even want to use “overcrowding” as an excuse. It seems to me, being no expert in legal or police matters, that this is sort of like saying, ‘we’re really bad at keeping crime down to a minimum…because of this inability to control the criminals in our county, our jails are literally overflowing with perps.’
Why would anyone admit that? To heck with the politicians and their excuses as to why the system can’t keep criminals in check- the excuse is just downright absurd. What if the prisons got REALLY overcrowded? Once they let all the small time offenders out, what next? Do they start letting rapists and murderers out? Why even send a person to jail if you’re just going to release due to some lame excuse? Isn’t part of the point of a jail to keep people from committing crimes because they won’t want to go to jail?! If they all know the jails are so crowded that they’re going to be released early no matter what they do (as long ass we’re talking smaller crimes), then doesn’t the sort of destroy part of the very reason we have jails?
Isn’t Hilton proof (she looked fairly calm to me arriving at the jail in the first place) that people understand that the element of fear is sort of diminished, since they know no matter what jail sentence they’re given, it’s going to be lowered?
Related- I’ve never understood the idea of cutting someone’s sentence. They always talk about how a person gets 5 years, but it’s not SO bad, they’ll be out in 2-3. Umm okay? Why the hell do we give them 5 years if we’re going to let them all out early?! “Good behavior?” What does that even mean? We’re rewarding criminals for behaving well in a building where they’re literally locked behind metal bars (or massive metal doors- depending on the jail/prison)…??? What other choice do you have- you’re locked in a room you can’t possibly get out of, and they’re are lots of guys making sure of that and they just happen to have weapons. There are rooms in the prison that are packed with firearms to make sure that if someone DOES somehow get out, they won’t be out for long and they will shoot to kill if they have to.
It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. None of it does. If overcrowding is such a big problem in so many places- here’s an idea, do what Sheriff Joe Arpaio does in Maricopa county and put them in friggin tents. I’ve never understood the concept of spending massive amounts of money on jails and prisons and such. Murderers are bad guys- you want to make sure they’re somewhere they can’t get out of. But don’t tell me that a $100 million building with 3 full meals a day, cable tv, and workout rooms are the only way to go. That’s just a big load of you know what. We’re all getting hosed in the process, and it’s not right.
Let’s fix the system. Let’s hold politicians and law enforcement to account when there are so many criminals that the jails overcrowd at all. Let’s hold these same people accountable when they spout off lame excuses for releasing someone who flaunts that law after a mere 3 days in jail. Let’s hold them to account for the piles of money they spend on putting these people away, then letting them go for acting like civilized human beings (as if acting like a sane person is something to be rewarded for!)
And finally- let’s make sure that the law is consistent for ALL people, no matter how much money they might have.
This stuff is actually sort of a joke…ten candidates on a stage is absurd. I was sort of torn on this- why allow only the top candidates? I feel the media is partly responsible for the top spots as it is…they push a few candidates all the time, no wonder they have the most support in current polls. All should get a chance to give their opinions and share their views. But, when you see them all together- you see this just doesn’t work.
A few thoughts- Giuliani…don’t much like him. The fact that he’s on his third marriage is upsetting to me personally. The fact that he’s pro-abortion is another aspect of his views I dislike a lot. I don’t think I can vote for a supporter of abortion. I also find his evasion of questions annoying. McCain and Romney are guilty of this as well. Sadly- the most open and honest candidates are those on the bottom of the polls. I’m sick of seeing a question asked and the top 3 guys dancing around with their answers.
Ron Paul- this guy is out of his mind. He doesn’t want us to lead the world basically…that’s the feeling I got from him. He wants an America that doesn’t intervene in international fights? Too bad our actions doing just that in WWII lead us to the spot as super power! I’d never support an anti-war “conservative.”
McCain- he just looks like a zombie to me. He’s constantly got this weird stare on his face- looks as if he’s staring at one spot or something. It’s a bit creepy. That and I forgot he voted against Bush’s tax cuts twice.
Tancredo has good ideas on immigration.
Personally- I think the best bet would be a Fred Thompson candidacy.
The top 3- McCain, Giuliani, and Romney are stepping over each other whining they wall want 30 seconds. Ugh…
I’m not very impressed at all. Out of this group- I’d vote for tough talking Tancredo.
UPDATE: I should mention I find Giuliani’s adoption blathering stupid when asked about abortion. He refuses to be clear and straight on his support for abortion, instead going on a tangent about how adoptions in NYC rose when he was mayor. I see that in the May 3 debate he claimed a 70% increase- I think tonight he said it was a 130% increase. It turns out, he’s full of it either way. FactCheck.Org has more info.
Note to Rudy- when asked about your support of killing soon-to-be-born babies…don’t go on and on about fictional adoption rates! ‘I support mothers killing babies, but hey- I’ll claim adoptions were up when I was mayor!’ Insulting.
Al Sharpton “debated” Don Imus’ radio producer on Hannity & Colmes tonight. No shock- he refused to answer any questions about his own racist or anti-semitic remarks. He refused to defend any of his own actions (he somehow thinks he’s the epitome of moral greatness, yet when asked about his many racist remarks- he dodges the question.)
Sharpton also refused to take on rap artists. Well- Imus’ producer asked Sharpton if he’d tell Hillary Clinton, who recently took $800, 000 from rap ‘artist’ Timbaland (who says “nigger” 24 times in one of his songs) to give Timbaland’s money back, what was Sharpton’s reply? He refused to tell her to give the cash back. Instead, he turned it into an attack on President Bush, complaining that Bush met with Puffy Sean Combs. Sharpton was asked again to stop dodging the issue and give an answer, but he proved himself the hypocritical coward we all know he is. Sad when you debate Don Imus’ radio producer and he makes you look like a coward.
Sharpton won’t ever take personal responsibility for his own racism. He’ll never give you a straight answer on his neverending race-baiting and hustling. He’ll always be a coward with a double standard. That’s the Sharpton we’ve known for so many years, why change now?
The terrorist plot to attack Fort Dix- all of the suspects arrested. Get this. They’re all muslims who daily praise mohammed- a mass murdering warrior.
is ANYONE, and I mean ANYONE shocked to hear this? Did anyone hear the news of a terror plot and actually wonder what religion these guys were a part of?
Does anyone not see the very disturbing pattern? Does anyone think that maybe when you follow a religion created by a mass murderer, this is the logical outcome? Does anyone want to deny that simple fact and come up with an explanation on how any person who praises a mass murderer could, in any way, claim to be peaceful or part of a religion of peace?
PS How many of these idiots are here illegally?
I don’t often watch Law And Order anymore…the show went downhill a long time ago. Probably with the departure of Orbach. One thing that I notice every now and again, from flipping through the channels, or seeing clips of the series on other shows- they have an obsessive tendency to cover real life current events while trying to make sure we all know from the start of the show that the event portrayed in this episode isn’t based on any actual events whatsoever- it’s purrrrrrely fictional, totally, completely, and 100%- except it isn’t at all.
Right now, Special Victims Unit is airing an episode about a preacher backed by his congregation who killed a gay prostitute he was having an affair with. Well, golly that sounds familiar to me. Minus the murder part- they had to add some fanciful addition to make it better for TV. I just have to wonder why they’re so adamant that the show isn’t based on any actual event.
I also tend to see a political pattern in the targets they go after. I could be wrong, but it seems they tend to pick on mostly conservative targets in their negative portrayals. Now, this particular episode, I take no issue with the target- this guy is just scum…but, the pattern and their insistence that it’s not based on any actual even is a tad bit annoying.
UPDATE: In the ‘not-so-shocking’category’ Law & Order SVU was followed by an episode of the original Law & Order where a man kills his daughter’s teacher because he was teaching the daughter about evolution- and of course, Christians are lunatics (like, duh) who kill people when they dare teach their children evolution. Can someone PLEASE name a single case of murder because a teacher taught a lesson evolution? The father says that the teacher was putting his daughter in mortal danger by trying to make her an unbeliever. Please don’t tell me you’re not seeing the clear attack on conservative values. I say ‘conservative’ because they don’t seem to be attacking the liberal Christian here, just a crude stereotype of conservative Christianity.
I often hear the following argument when discussing illegal immigrants:
We shouldn’t separate families…so, when an illegal alien has a child in the US- that child is automatically a US citizen. That kid won’t be deported, because they’re not illegal. The mother, however, can be deported, but illegal advocates argue the system is broken, because or current laws would break this family apart.
Now- this line of reasoning is just downright silly. If this your argument, you’re basically making a loud declaration to all future illegals- ‘all you have to do is come into our country and have a child…then you can claim you should stay because to deport you would mean we’re breaking up a family.’
No shocker that the illegal alien advocates who call for people to break the law don’t see the obvious insanity with their argument. Then again, I think they do, in fact, see the insanity, but because they’re advocates of breaking the law- they just don’t care.
People will continue to use this argument and many others…but, breaking the law is breaking the law. Unfortunately, even our president has refused to show an ounce of leadership in regards to this issue and is supporting an amnesty plan, which will do nothing but hurt all of us.
I previously wrote about the case of Victor Harris, a man in Georgia who fleed police after police tried to pull him over. One officer used a PIT move to disable his car…Harris’ car left the road due to this and crashed into a ditch. Harris was paralyzed in the process.
Harris sued Officer Tim Scott for damages, claiming Scott violated his 4th Amendment right protecting him against unreasonable searches and seizures. Today SCOTUS ruled 8-1 that police cannot be sued if someone is involved in an accident like this. Police don’t have to stop a chase even if there’s a chance someone could get hurt. I haven’t read the ruling, and I probably won’t, as the legal jargon probably won’t make much sense, but it’s being reported by various news agencies. I heard the story just now on Fox News.
Glad to hear that the justices used common sense in this case. Or so it seems. It’s just completely unreasonable, in my view, to force police into corners- making it impossible for them to stop fleeing suspects, due to fear that they might get sued if the suspect gets hurt. Harris got what he deserves. No one will convince me he doesn’t deserve to be in a wheel chair, because he does. We all must deal with the results of our actions…and Harris selfishly put lives in risk. The result from his own choices was a wheelchair. Good for Officer Scott as well. He was being threatened with a major financial blow from this lawsuit possibly going forward. As far as I can tell from what’s been reported and testified to- he did absolutely nothing wrong, and he shouldn’t have to pay any price for simply doing his job to protect the people in Georgia.
Now if someone can tell me why on earth Justice John Paul Stevens was thinking as the lone dissenter.
I love American cities that blatantly say “we will ignore US law. We will NOT follow your law, and we will not assist you in enforcing these laws. Well- we still want state and federal tax revenue, but screw you outside of that!”
These so-called ‘santuary cities’ are run by idiots who have no legitimate reason for violating federal law. The leaders in these cities put the entire nation at risk. Take San Francisco- one of the most radical cities in the country where current Mayor, Gavin Newsome, has vowed to make sure that no city employee helps the federal government in regards to immigration law. He will assure that immigration law is not followed in his city. This is the same mayor that started issuing illegal gay marriage licenses a couple of years ago- licenses that were worth just as much as the paper they were printed on.
The most commonly used excuse for these variious cities refusal to abide by and enforce federal immigration law boils down to this snippet from a story on the city of Oakland’s refusal to follow federal law:
[Oakland police chief] Tucker said the federal government currently does not seek police assistance on immigration raids and that local cops are not “in the business” of enforcing federal immigration law and are “too busy” fighting crime. But he added that police would still cooperate with the federal government on any “investigation of criminal conduct within the city limits of Oakland.”
Now, this comes from a story on the city of Oakland passing new laws trying to block federal alien raids. They want to make sure that the federal government cannot do its job and enforce immigration law. They will do their utomost to ensure that illegal aliens can stay in their city without fear of being arrested or deported.
Now, let’s take the chief of police’s comments above and analyze them. He says that his officers are not in the business of enforcing immigration law, and that they’re too busy fighting crime. That is, of course, a load of nonsense. Immigration law is, hence the word LAW, a legal issue that is to be dealt with by law ENFORCEMENT officials (read: police officers, FBI, etc.) The chief doesn’t think that immigration law is really law that should be enforced. It’s not his job to enforce federal laws. But it is. Why are these agenda-driven officers, mayors, city council members, etc. refusing only to enforce ONE federal law? They use the excuse that they’re not trained to enforce federal law, yet immigration law is the only law they claim they’e not trained to deal with.
If someone robs a federally insured bank in their city- do they refuse to send officers to the bank? Bank robbery is federal crime. When will Oakland, San Francisco, and other cities that refuse to enforce immigration law refuse to enforce bank robbery laws?
Here’s a list of other crimes that local officials, if they want to be consistent and refuse to enforce federal law, will need to stop responding to. Better hope your city isn’t actually consistent in it’s supposed moral stand against enforcing immigration law simply because it’s a federal crime they claim they’re not equipped to deal with:
so-called “hate crimes”
murder of US government official
murder for hire
These are all laws that are federal in nature or have a federal component, in which federal law enforcement agencies would get involved.
Let’s hope that cities that refuse, in principle and practice, not to enforce immigration laws by using the excuse “it’s not our job to enforce federal law” continue to be hypocrites. These people will refuse to deal with this particular crime, but for some reason when someone robs a bank- they show up! Amazing how that works. I guess when a bank is robbed, these police chiefs suddenly learn how to enforce federal law, and they’re able to do so. Hopefully the federal government will step in soon and tell all of these cities that their flagrant violation of federal law will no longer stand.
It seems the media has become obsessed with comparing the VT shooter to the asian film, OLDBOY. DRUDGE has posted two pictures Cho (who killed 32 people at Virginia Tech) and claims that his poses fit a revenge film called OLDBOY.
Except, as far as I can see- there’s absolutely no link at all. The two pics compared to the film are TOO generic to connect it to anything if you ask me. In one pic, Cho is holding a gun to his head. Drudge posts a pic from the film next to this pose Cho made. Seems odd- there are literally thousands of movies with people holding guns to the sides of their heads.
In the second picture, Cho is holding a hammer, as if he’s going to lunge and attack with it. This is put next to the pic from the film OLDBOY where the main character is holding a hammer. The two pics don’t match at all. Cho is holding the hammer with both hands and looks like he’s going to lunge. In the OLDBOY picture, the character is holding the hammer with one hand, and in the scene- if I remember correctly, he’s merely walking with it. He does, indeed, attack with the hammer, but Cho didn’t use a hammer to attack anyone- so I don’t see ANY connection whatsoever.
I saw one report yesterday that said no one knows if Cho has ever seen the film in question.
Two very generic poses that don’t look anything like the movie scenes- sounds like the media (including Drudge) is hyping what looks like a nonexistant connection. Unfortunate, as many have picked up the same idea and used it to claim that violence in films might have caused Cho to kill his classmates.
Movie violence doesn’t lead people to kill. If it did, I’d have killed dozens of people, as I’ve seen literally thousands of horror movies in my 28 years. The guy was evil. He wasn’t insane, I don’t think…he was just evil. An evil person who had no concern for ANYONE, including himself. The media shouldn’t try to hype odd theories like this for whatever reasons they’re choosing to do so.
If we find out that Cho was the world’s biggest fan of OLDBOY, then maybe we can connect the dots. Still- it’d be absurd to blame the film or any aspect of it for any aspect of Cho’s heinous crimes.