God Save This Court...From Justice Stevens et. al.

The US Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments about the application of lethal injection as a means to execute condemned criminals. At issue is whether the chemicals injected into the victim -- no, wait a minute -- victim would describe the person no longer living because of the inmate's criminal actions -- cause pain while they're waiting to die. Gosh, we just couldn't have the poor prisoner feeling pain on his deathbed now, could we?

As expected, our most liberal justices didn't let us down. Justice Stevens commented that animals would not be euthanized in such a manner. Good heavens, Justice Stevens -- are you actually comparing convicted murderers and rapists lawfully sentenced to dogs and cats? What does this say about his concern for the rights of the victims' families? Can't you see the exchange between the judge and the grieving mother? "Gee, Mrs. Smith, too bad about your teenage daughter's brutal murder (that she bled to death scared and alone, actually), but her killer might feel a bit of discomfort as he passes from this life. This concerns me..... " It's time for this man to retire.

Bleeding Heart Breyer questioned the need for more pain medication. The issue here, Mr. Justice, is that the execution works, not that the condemned man hurts some. Again, did his murder victim get any anesthesia as this monster sliced her throat? I doubt it.

Justice Ginsburg questioned attorneys about the risk of prisoners dying an excruciating death with the current mix of chemicals. At the risk of repeating myself, SOMEONE ALREADY DIED AN EXCRUCIATING DEATH, thanks to this criminal. This lack of regard for victims' rights is detestable.

Thank God Justice Scalia is a voice of reason in this sea of liberalism. Pointing out that the Supreme Court has never held that a state must use a method that causes the least amount of pain, he nailed the issue by stating, "Hanging was not a quick and easy way to go." Amen!

Hopefully a majority of the court will see that the only thing cruel and unusual here is the fact that families must continue their lives without their loved ones, and rule accordingly.

May 1, 2006 - Go Gringos!

Boycott Everything Gringo Day seems to be moving towards us full steam ahead. It seems these protestors and immigration activists would like the US to wave a magic wand and bestow citizenship on those who've broken our laws and are living on US soil illegally. This wonderful policy is otherwise known as amnesty. Right....grant amnesty again and spit in the face of all immigrants who have come to America legally, learned our language, paid their way, and maintained productive lives. It's the American Dream, and anyone willing to follow our established procedures to obtain US citizenship is welcome to it. Honestly. Citizenship is not a reward for crossing a river, traversing a desert, and evading law enforcement authorities.

So you want to be treated like Americans? Here's my suggestion: If you skip work in support of this protest, you get FIRED, just like Joe Q. Public would be if he decided, "Hmm, today I think I'll stay home and watch the soap operas." For the students who feel some solidarity with the protest organizers and plan to be truants, you should be suspended if you fail to attend school Monday. You should reap what you sow.

Meanwhile, the machinery of capitalism will churn on as your boycott has virtually no effect on our economy. If the protestors avoid all things Gringo, that means: no driving (Henry Ford, Gringo); no use of electricity (Thomas Edison, Gringo); no email or computer use (IBM, full of Gringos, and Bill Gates, too); no travel by airplane (Wright Brothers, Gringos). Everyone getting the picture? So go ahead, boycott. What about turning these energies into constructive solutions to this issue? I'd like to see those illegal immigrants live here legally if that's their desire. Everyone may benefit as a result.

Now W, Shut That Barn Door.....The Horse Left Already

Anyone else find it amusing or perhaps exasperating that our executive branch is finally getting around to doing something about the gas price situation? I'm not harping on the reality of paying (today, anyway) $2.79 for a gallon of gas. Hey, have you seen the price of gas in Finland lately?

All of the Chicken Littles whose sky is falling parrot the liberals' favorite talking point on this issue: there's some evil conspiracy between the President and Veep and "Big Oil." That's right y'all, Bush is lining his pockets with funds siphoned out of ExxonMobil while you are paying $100 to fill up your Hummer. And before you go there, NO, I am absolutely not anti-SUV. Buy what car you need or want -- it's s free country. If I'm an ExxonMobil stockholder (I'm not currently) and they're making "obscene" (liberals' words, not mine) profits, and the stock price reflects the same, well hooray for me and my IRA portfolio. And they claim it's a vast right-wing conspiracy...geez.

As for suspending deposits for the strategic petroleum reserves (held in a secret, undisclosed location...), I disagree with that from a, well...strategic viewpoint. In the interest of national security, our government should continue these deposits, or risk real shortages when the time becomes critical. Granted, the deposits President Bush is suspending do not amount to much on the grand scale, but I don't think it's the best option.

It really gets down to supply and demand, Economics 101, remember? As long as we demand, demand, and demand some more, then our OPEC suppliers will gladly supply us, albeit at a price meeting the market equilibrium. If the US suddenly decided to tap into the Alaskan National reserves, the resulting shift in supply would most likely force prices down. What about shale oil deposits in the Western US? Several options exist for America. Our total dependence on Arab and other foreign oil shouldn't be one of them.