+1 for Obama, in my book

Occasionally I find myself in agreement with Barack Obama. Overall, we are at odds in our world view, but on this issue we are mostly in agreement. I read about how the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision found that the use of capital punishment for child rapists is "cruel and unusual punishment" and therefore unconstitutional. Well, capital punishment is neither cruel or unusual. It was the application in saying that the punishment did not fit the crime, which does not meet the criteria for deciding upon "cruel and unusual punishment", especially since the 10th Amendment guarantees that the states have such rights to decide these punishments. Personally, anyone guilty of such a crime does indeed deserve death. It is not exactly unscriptural for such a thing, nor is it an outrage to see some perverted child rapist taken out of society so that it will never happen again.

Barack Obama came out against the Supreme Court decision. Though he probably believes in a more narrow use of such a punishment than I do, I do applaud Obama for having the gonads to make such a statement and taking a stand in the arena of ideas.

Democrat Barack Obama said Wednesday he disagrees with the Supreme Court's decision outlawing executions of people who rape children, a crime he said states have the right to consider for capital punishment.

"I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances for the most egregious of crimes," Obama said at a news conference. "I think that the rape of a small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime and if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances the death penalty is at least potentially applicable, that that does not violate our Constitution."

See, I can give credit where credit is due. And Obama deserves my support for his stance on this issue. That is not to say that I support him for President...no frickin' way! But on this issue, yes.

Several parts of this story concern me

I understand the "cruel and unusual punishment" aspect of administering the death penalty. The 8th Amendment to the Constitution guarantees that "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." However, the taking of life is neither cruel nor unusual. The argument of whether lethal injection is cruel is fallacious. If we can put thousands of cats and dogs to death in the same manner, we can execute a few murderers in the same way. The end result is death no matter the method. We do not torture to death, draw and quarter, burn at the stake, stone people, cut off heads with a Ginsu, etc. A simple needle in the arm with an overdose of barbiturates is hardly cruel. None the less, spineless liberals will find any way they can to protect murderers while at the same time slaughter innocent, unborn life. The issue of whether or not lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment is going to be decided by a court of nine justices rather than by the supreme judge. Go figure.

What really bothers me is the idea that the 10th Amendment is once again becoming null and void. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The rights of the states to try, convict, and execute properly tried criminals is a violation of their rights as states. No execution will go forth unless the 5th Amendment was followed, anyway. "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" Here is the story upon which I comment.

What is so hard about this?

I highly value human life. God values life, as well. That is why he put the ultimate price on the taking of innocent life. He is the one who invented the death penalty, not man. God is not schizophrenic, so I figure that he didn't change his mind on the topic of murder.

The State of North Carolina is heatedly debating the death penalty. Death penalty opponents claim that the moratorium on executions is not an attempt to thwart the existence of the death penalty in this state. I don't buy it at all. There is an agenda at work here.

Medical boards have decided that it is unethical for a doctor to comply with the law and have a physician participate in lethal injection executions. It was a stupid requirement in the law to begin with. Let's change the law. Either that or allow the judicial process to strike down that provision. That won't happen, though, since the liberal judiciary only takes activist stands on liberal issues, not conservative.

Administering the death penalty is not about revenge. It is about punishment. What part of

Genesis 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

Romans 13:3-4 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

is so hard to comprehend?

Not that I relish the thought of taking someone's life or seeing someone "step into eternity" and into Hell, but I just believe what those verses say. I believe it to the point that I would be willing to perform the execution myself. I have no problem flipping the switch on "Old Sparky", pulling the trigger, or jabbing someone with a needle if that is the sentence. I do not say that I will not have a few feelings of my own to sort out afterwards, but I do believe it to be righteous and therefore believe it to be just and right.

I just wish that our elected officials had the guts to have the same resolve. I am tired of hearing about the moratorium, protesters, and whiners. I see several articles on the N&O web site about the death penalty.

A state House committee recommends legislation that would let inmates appeal their death sentences if they believe the sentences were based on racial discrimination. It does not propose legislation on doctors' roles in execution.

How in the world is the sentence based upon race? If someone committed murder, then they get whacked themselves. Simple. It does not matter about the race of the convict. The only fact that should matter is "has he/she been found guilty of murder?" If the answer is "yes", then it is time to whack a convict.

Lt. Gov. Beverly Perdue says the state should impose a moratorium on executions until constitutional questions about how the death penalty is administered are resolved.

What constitutional questions? How is something as easy as lethal injection cruel and unusual for punishment? Personally, I believe it to be too easy a form of execution. The victim of the murder they committed probably died a far more violent or painful death. It is painless and non violent. The end result is the same, but the convict gets off light.

To our elected representatives and all opponents of the death penalty, grow a spine, and let government be a terror to evil, bear not the sword in vain, be the minister of God, and execute wrath upon him that does evil.