Fry Him!!!

Beware ... This Post Is Rated NC-17 for Language

This is something that really pisses me off. I think the reason it affects me so much is that I really don't know the right answer ... it just seems unfair.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear a case where the Bush administration will try to overturn the death penalty for a piece of shit Illegal Mexican Immigrant. He is doing this at the behest of the International Court Of Justice (now there's an oxymoron). The International Court found that Jose Medellin was not informed of his international right to contact the Mexican Consulate for legal assistance as proscribed by the Vienna Convention. This is just the first of many fights as Medellin was just one of 51 illegals on death row that the International court wants new trials for.

Jose Medellin and four others were convicted of capital murder and rape in the deaths of Jenifer Ertman (14 years old) and Elizabeth Pena (16 years old). Medellin's younger brother (14 at the time) is serving 40 years for participating in the rape and murder. After gang raping the two girls for an hour, the girls were strangled and killed with a belt. Medellin confessed to the rapes and murders. Two of the five that were tried as adults had their sentences commuted to life because they were only 17 at the time of the crime (though one of them was less than a month shy of his 18th birthday), two have already been executed, and Medellin is scheduled to be executed in the very near future (not soon enough I say).

Here is my conundrum: I believe in laws and international treaties. We signed the Vienna Convention ... and it does protect American citizens abroad who are accused of crimes. The thing is ... when an American is brought in by police overseas, he promptly informs them that he is an American Citizen and wants to speak to someone from the State Department. I seriously doubt that this illegal claimed his nationality until he thought it might save his ass from a lethal injection. But the fact is that this International Court Of Justice has jurisdiction in this matter, and the US signed this treaty. Now Texas (God Bless Its' Soul) is fighting this. They want this man executed for his crimes. While my mind understands why we may have to re-try him (and hopefully he gets the same sentence), my heart screams to kill this piece of garbage before SCOTUS (Supreme Court Of The United States) can stop the execution. The families of these little girls have waited long enough for justice.

In defence of the President, though he is doing an extremely unpopular thing here, he is doing what he feels is required under international law. After this International Court made this ruling last year, he withdrew this nation from the treaty, but we were still covered by it when the ruling came down.

What do you think, do we go with our heads and grant him a new trial ... or go with our guts and fry him?

Sphere: Related Content

A Good Use Of The Veto Pen

Today, President George W. Bush did something he hardly ever does ... he vetoed a spending bill. Of course, like everything this President does, he will be criticized in the press and the Democrats will try to make political fodder out of it, but let's take a closer look at this bill and see why he vetoed it.

The bill is HR 976 and its' purpose is to amend Title XXI of the Social Security Act. It was designed to be the largest expansion of health insurance coverage for children since Medicaid was started in the 1960's. The bill increased the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) by $35,000,000,000.00 (35 Billion ... I just think that all the zeros bring the cost of this program into better perspective), over the next 5 years. Currently, children in families with incomes up to 200 percent of the poverty level. HR 976 would expand coverage to families making 300 percent of the poverty level ($62,000.00 for a family of 4), and certain states would be able to enact legislation expanding the coverage to families making up to $83,000.00.

Obviously, a family with an income of $83K is not exactly wallowing in poverty, so why are our tax dollars going to be used to help provide insurance for their kids? Sure, medical insurance is expensive ... but for someone making that kind of money it becomes a choice. A lot of times that choice becomes a more expensive car instead of a health plan. Since this is a free country, I have nothing to say about a stupid choice like that (well maybe a little), but I Do Not want my taxes to pay for his choice. And $62K a year is pretty much the same thing. What this bill will do is get people to drop their current (more expensive) health insurance and switch to the Government sponsored insurance program. You can't blame the folks for taking a good deal when it's offered to them, but you can blame a Government that is more interested in finding a way to expand government dependence, then maybe finding a way to lower the cost of current health insurance.

I actually read all 109 pages of this extremely confusing bill (I may have understood 20 of the pages). I must say, I consider myself of at least average intelligence, so our Congressional Representatives must all be members of MENSA and pure geniuses to craft and understand this bill ... even when their appearances on News programs makes them seem dull-witted, they must just be trying to relate to us average people in their constituencies.

A lot of stuff has been said about this bill extending SCHIP to illegal alien children, but try as I might, I could not find anything in it that said it would. Actually, on page 93, Section 605, entitled, "No Federal Funding For Illegal Aliens", this statement is made in fairly precise and understandable English, "Nothing in this Act allows Federal payment for individuals who are not legal residents". This statement is actually amazingly clear ... especially since it was sandwiched between a couple of sections full of legal gobbledy gook. Luckily, I'm a rather trusting fella that takes everything at face value. If I wasn't, I would realize that there is also nothing in this bill that prohibits the individual states from extending SCHIP to illegal immigrants and using federal dollars to help offset this extra expense by using more federal money to cover legal residents.

My least favorite part of this bill is the way they want to pay for this expansion. They want to double the tobacco tax. This is just great for all you non-smokers, but I smoke two packs a day and this would be an increase in the taxes that I personally pay. This proposed tax of $0.61 per pack translates into $482.03 a year after I add in the extra state sales tax of 8.25%. Back in June, the state of Texas, in order to lower our school property tax, increased the tobacco tax by $1.00 a pack. This now costs me $790.22 a year. My property tax went down, but the appraised value of my property went up $18,500.00 and then the school district increased the rate $0.17 per $100.00 in valuation. After the dust cleared, I am now paying $386.52 more than before the "property tax cut". The key question that I am trying to get to (besides complaining about my trials and tribulations) is why are we constantly putting the burden of extra taxes on smokers? Could it be that tobacco users are an easy target since they only comprise roughly 18% of the population? This is actually a regressive tax since the smoking rate is higher for those with lower incomes and the higher the income, the lower the smoking rate ... how does this play with the "Tax The Rich" class?

Sphere: Related Content

San Francisco Judge Stops Homeland Security From Doing Its' Job

The Social Security Administration was all set to mail out letters to employers today advising them of mis-matches between social security numbers and names of their employees. The SSA has been doing this for more than two decades, but this time there was something extra in the letters. The something extra was a warning from Homeland Security to correct the problem within 90 days or face fines or possible criminal prosecution. Previously, employers would just discard the letters and pay a small fine (if they were even fined), charging the fine off as a cost of doing business. This time, the employers wouldn't be as cavalier about it.

But wait just a second ... the AFL-CIO filed a lawsuit against the government claiming that the new letters violate the rights of workers (even if they are not working legally) and put an undo burden on employers (who are required to make sure their employees are eligible to work in the United States).

US District Judge Maxine Chesney granted a temporary restraining order on the "no-match" letters till Oct 1st to allow herself a bit of breathing room to make a decision. People have villainized this judge for the restraining order, she actually did what any "just" justice would have, facing the imminent release of the letters and not having had the time to fully look into the situation. Before you laud or demonize her, wait for her decision.

Now for the crux of the matter, the AFL-CIO could have chosen any district in which to file this suit, they chose San Francisco because it falls into the jurisdiction of the very liberal 9th Circuit Court Of Appeals (the most reversed court in the country). So whatever the judge rules, it will be appealed to the 9th circuit and the union wins (till the supreme court overturns them ... again). Meanwhile, the union gets to keep sucking dues out of the illegals for months, if not years. It's terrible to actually see the law being used to thwart the carrying out of our immigration policies ... just another reason the American People are so sick and tired of Washington.

Sphere: Related Content