Why I Oppose the Death Penalty

I have no moral issues with the idea of death as an appropriate punishment however, I find it inconceivable that society's desire for justice (revenge) against the certainly guilty is more important than killing of wrongly convicted persons.

On the battlefield, sometimes it's not possible to ensure the safety of non-combatants which at times are not detectable or differentiable from actual combatants.  I have big problems with the  concept of acceptable collateral damage and casualties on the battlefield.  Our justice system is not the battlefield where sometimes it's impossible separate combatants (criminals in this analogy) from non-combatants (wrongly convicted persons).  We apply the death penalty on a case by case basis and to the best of my knowledge have never executed the wrong prisoner.  The point being, the rights of the innocent, and wrongly convicted in this case, are more important than society's blood lust.

Considering the number of truly innocent people executed under Sharia law, it seems completely logical and consistent for me to oppose the death penalty both in the United States and everywhere else.  I support a worldwide ban on judicial killing because while there is a small percentage of certainly wrongly convicted innocent persons in US prisons facing death sentences (1 is too many) there are untold numbers of innocent persons intentionally convicted for non-crimes facing death sentences in the darkest corners of the world where the iron fist of Islam, Communism, Socialism and Dictators rule.

A ban on death sentences worldwide could be a glimmer of hope for the untold millions of political prisoners, many of whom probably have values similar to mine(ours) and are innocent of any real crime.

According to the innocence project which uses DNA to vindicate and free wrongly convicted persons:

Q. How many innocent people are there in prison?

A. We will never know for sure, but the few studies that have been done estimate that between 2.3% and 5% of all prisoners in the U.S. are innocent (for context, if just 1% of all prisoners are innocent, that would mean that more than 20,000 innocent people are in prison).

More broadly, we know that innocent people are often identified as suspects by law enforcement and that DNA testing often clears them before they go to trial, but that DNA testing is impossible in the vast majority of criminal cases. In approximately 25% of cases where DNA testing was done by the FBI during the course of investigations, suspects were excluded by the testing. That doesn't mean we believe 25% of convictions are in error, but when coupled with the fact that DNA testing is only possible in 5-10% of all criminal cases, it shows that science cannot always clear innocent suspects, which can result in wrongful convictions.


http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/How_many_innocent_people_are_there_in_prison.php

"There, but for the grace of God, go I"
~John Bradford

Uttered as he watched political prisoners being taken to be executed.  He himself was executed by burning at the stake in on 1 July 1555, his crime was his Protestant faith a non-crime for which people are executed to this day.

DNA Tests and Abolition of Abortion

Everyday courts use forensic biology (DNA testing of biological material such as hair, blood, semen, saliva, etc.) to place suspects and victims whose bodies cannot be located at suspected crime scenes.  DNA testing is routinely used to establish legally binding paternity judgements and a for a host of other reasons.

Prosecutors and juries place great confidence in information provided by DNA testing.  Information gleaned from forensic biology has played a very substantial role in sending people to prison and freeing the wrongly imprisoned.

When it comes to determining paternity modern DNA testing confirmations have 99.99% confidence, meaning that there is a 1 in 100,000 chance that the DNA match is from another person with a very very very very similar DNA type.  When it comes to confirming that DNA types don't match the test provides 100% confidence.

What does all of this have to do with abortion?

Today we use DNA testing whenever available to in judicial due process in order to establish the facts of the situation and our laws demand that no person be deprived of their life without due process.  It is perfectly logical and reasonable therefore to perform an in vitro DNA test on the organism that a woman is intending to abort in order to determine if it is in fact a human being.

If the organism that a pregnant woman is carrying is or isn't a human being can easily be confirmed with a DNA test.

Major US Government Asset Seizures and Programs

Government seizure of private assets is also known as Nationalization.

This is one of the major strategies advocated by socialists for transitioning from capitalism to socialism. Socialist ideologies that favor nationalization are typically called state socialism. In this context, the goals of nationalization were to dispossess large capitalists and redirect the profits of industry to the public purse, as a precursor to the long-term goals of establishing worker-management and reorganizing production toward use

Humor: The Recipe for a Happy Life

Everyone that reads this post or watches this cute and humorous video will imagine that they are in the minority and not the majority.  Since this is not statistically possible, I have devised a simple test to help.  It's at the bottom of this post, if you can't find it you probably don't need the pill....

Among the many benefits of 'the pill' are reduced self-awareness, uncertainty and fear.  Without the encumbrance of intelligence you can jump off a roof, drive drunk, take drugs, or have unprotected sexual relationships without fear.  All of the meaningless and even dangerous activities will now seem perfectly acceptable, even enjoyable to you after lowing your IQ to around 70 or so.

Unfortunately there is a side effect.  All of those people that you have no concern about you will begin to find very annoying; people of other races, other sexual orientations, people with more money, a better car, house, job, spouse or people that seem just a little bit happier, even people that just want to own a firearm for their own protection - basically anyone different from you.  To make matters worse you may find yourself actually hating these people if they are opposed to your mindlessly destructive opinions, habits and attitudes.

The good news if you won't have to hate them alone, you'll be in the majority.  Below are a few simple tests to help you determine which pill is best for you:

(1) Do you think guns are dangerous?
a- No. Guns are inanimate objects there is nothing inherently dangerous about guns. [0 points]

b-Yes. Guns kill people, they're bad and they should be outlawed. [1 point]

(2) Do you think the federal government should ban foods with meat, sugar, salt, fat, etc.?

a-No. People should be free to eat whatever food they choose. [0 points]

b- Yes. Eating meat and among other things is destroying both the health of society and our natural environment. [1 point]

(3) Do you think the federal government should force churches to perform religious marriage ceremonies for homosexuals even if it violates the philosophical doctrine and beliefs of the church's members?

a- No. Churches are independent organizations they have the right to decide how they operate. [0 points]

b-Yes. It's not fair that homosexuals are barred from religious marriage ceremonies. [1 point]

(4) Do you think the federal government should prohibit two persons from being legally married even if that prohibition causes them to be considered differently in the eyes of the law?

a-No. Discriminating against a person based on their sexual orientation is prohibited by the Constitution. [0 points]

a-Yes. Homosexuality is a dangerous invention the federal government must do everything possible to discourage it. [1 point]

(5) Do you think government is responsible for taking care of all the needs of poor people?

a-No. While it's true that no society can survive without charity and compassion, doing it with other people's money is wrong. [0 points]

b- Yes.  Somebody has to do something to help these people! [1 point]

(6) Do you think the government should remove far right or far left members of the media from the airwaves? 

a-No. We have to take the good with the bad.  If I don't like something - I just turn the channel or turn it off.[0 points]

b-Yes. These people are dangerous the government needs to ensure that their crazy ideas don't spread.[1 point]

(7) Do you think abortion is a woman's right?

a-No. Abortion kills a human being it is violation of the most fundamental principles of our culture. [0 points]

b-Yes. The world is too overcrowded already another poor unwanted baby is just going to make things worse.[1 point]

(8) Do you think references to God, Jesus and Christmas on our currency, public buildings, and laws need to be removed?

a-No. References to God, Jesus and Christmas don't bother me they are part of our history and are protected by the First Amendment.[0 points]

b-Yes. I don't believe in God and it's offensive to me that I have to confront so much evidence of this fairy tale everywhere I go.  The First Amendment clearly prohibits this type of forced religious indoctrination and compulsion.[1 point]

Add up the point value for the answers you have chosen, then consult the following scale to determine your how much you need to lower your IQ in order to join the majority. (If you can't understand these directions, congratulations, you are already in the majority. No adjustment needed. You can stop here.)

Your score:

8 points - No adjustment needed, congratulations you're ready for a happy life.

7 points - To reach an IQ of 70 you don't need more than a 10 point reduction.

6 points - To reach an IQ of 70 you need a between 10 and 20 points of reduction.

5 points - To reach an IQ of 70 you will need a 20-30 point reduction.

3-4 points-  To reach an IQ of 70 you will need at least a 40 point reduction.

1-2 points-To reach an IQ of 70 you will need at least a 60 point reduction.

0 points-To reach an IQ of 70 you will need at least a 70 point reduction.

Reality is what it is.  It is neither happy or sad, if you want a happy life you're going to need to ignore reality.  If that's what you want, contact sleepthinker.com

California's Stealth Gun Confiscation Program Coming to Your State

Could you be targeted by a family member, neighbor, teacher, social worker or an acquaintance in an effort to deprive you of your legally owned firearms?  The simple answer is yes.

Here's one scenario:  First you are victimized by a rubber stamped (see note 1-3) protection order, involuntary commitment order or face multi-year misdemeanor charges.  Your firearms can be legally confiscated in a military-style raid on your residence if you don't surrender them.  If you resist, you may die and you will certainly be portrayed as a dangerous unstable or criminal individual.

If you think this is all just a hypothetical nightmare situation, think again.

DHS MRAP Vehicle

California Raiders Seize Guns as Owners Lose Right to Bear Arms

California Department of Justice police agents confiscated legally purchased and owned firearms from harmless middle aged couple near Ontario, California on Tuesday on March 5, 2013.

The agents, work for the a state-level program supposedly intended to confiscate illegal firearms, now targets people who legally purchased firearms and have lost that right after being accused of a crime with a prison sentence of 2 or more years, involuntarily committed to mental institutions or hit with a restraining order.

While all of this sounds pretty reasonable on the surface when you dig a bit deeper a host of problems emerge.

California Disarmament Police Action

For the moment, California is the only state that tracks and disarms people with legally registered guns who have lost the right to own them, according to Attorney General Kamala Harris. Almost 20,000 gun owners in the state are prohibited from possessing firearms.  Convicted felons and persons under a domestic violence restraining order or deemed mentally unstable are prohibited from owning a firearm under

http://smartgunlaws.org/prohibited-purchasers-generally-policy-summary/
http://lawyerlocator.lawyers.com/criminal-defense/criminal-convictions-gun-ownership/

As many as 200,000 people nationwide may no longer be qualified to own firearms, according to Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis. Other states may lack confiscation programs because they don’t track purchases as closely as California, which requires most weapons sales go through a licensed dealer and be reported.

California gun-confiscation program seen as model for nation

A California law that allows authorities to track down gun owners who lost their legal rights to keep their weapons — and then confiscate those firearms — is being heralded as a model for the nation, according to one media report.
The state, which maintains an Armed Prohibited Persons list, is home to more 19,700 gun owners who aren’t allowed to legally possess their firearms, the state’s attorney general said in an United International Press report. The gun owners, the report continues, were once legal carriers but then lost their rights after committing crimes.


The problem with all of these justifications for depriving a person of their legally owned firearms is that the bar for each of the three justifications has been lowered so far that anyone call fall victim to them.