Click Here to Read the Commentary
Dear John Whitehead,
We’ve never met, but you might recognize my name, because Jayson Whitehead published an interview with me on the Rutherford Institute website in 2005 concerning my book, _From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany_.
I wanted to tell you that I was delighted to read your article on Bachmann and Schaeffer on your website. I agree heartily with it. I don’t know if you saw my op-ed article on the same topic (published in _Philadelphia Inquirer_, _Ft. Worth Star-Telegram_, _Sacracmento Bee_, _Kansas City Star_, _Modesto Bee_, and elsewhere), but here it is, in case you are interested:
http://www.sacbee.com/2011/08/17/3844430/bachmann-and-dominionism.html
Blessings,
Richard
Friday, August 19, 2011
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
The Death Penalty Is a Miscarriage of Justice: It Should Be Abolished
Click Here to Read the Commentary
I am not a dedicated Baptist. I have not been to church for years. I am
67 years old.
I was raised as a Christian and I believe in God and I believe you can
not go to heaven except by Jesus Christ.
I have seen shows on the death penalty and it concerns me.
When a convicted criminal is sentenced to death and he is seated to be
executed, the State provides a priest or clergy to stand by his side and
do whatever he can to get the KILLER to ask the Lord to forgive his sins.
We all know that Jesus Christ died on the cross to have God forgive ALL
our sins who ask forgiveness, no matter what the sin or crime, and God
will forgive the person and he will go to heaven.
THAT, is where I have a problem. I don't want the killer to go to Heaven.
I want the killer to do life in prison and be dead a long time before a
clergy or priest can get the person to confess his sins and ask God for
forgiveness and he straight to hell.
That is my opinion.
you are speaking truth to wimpiness. not having the death penalty is the true miscarriage of justice. endless appeals and the different levels of murder are also miscarriages of justice. the death penalty is not there for justice. once an injustice has been done there is only retribution, restitution, revenge and righting a wrong. in any crime there is only injustice, justice has already gone out the window. and for the taking of a human life, deliberately or in the act of another crime, society has the not just the right but the obligation to demand the ultimate penalty for the ultimate crime. you apologists for murderers make me sick. if the founding fathers did not want the death penalty in america they would have specifically included that in the constitution. they knew it was an effective deterrent and the obligation of society to protect its citizens.
Dear Mr. Whitehead,
While there may be times when people have been wrongly charged with, even convicted of, a crime, the death penalty is not a miscarriage of justice by any stretch of the imagination. The death penalty was a penalty instituted by God to protect society against those who had become so spiritually corrupt that they had degenerated to the level of murder, adultery, homosexuality, etc. No matter who says otherwise, the death penalty is a perfectly legitimate punishment that actually raises the dignity of human life back to the level where if a person takes a life he pays for it with his own. Period. And those who are the family of the victim should get the first opportunity to throw the switch, pull the lever for the hangman, whatever.
What has happened in our culture is we have so debased the value of human life that we simply allow crime to happen with minimum punishment. Courts bargain with the lawyers of the criminal while the victim/victim's family has little or no input into that process. That is a travesty! Godly designed justice is always based upon restitution. Under that system, if you steal, you pay back double the value of what you stole. If you cannot, you are sold to indentured servitude until you work off what you owe. If you kill someone, you die, unless the killing was accidental. Then there are even specific consequences and ways of dealing with that situation.
The commandment, "Thou shalt not 'kill,'" has been so abused by the God haters because the original intent of the commandment was thou shalt not MURDER, or kill without cause. And, of course, the word "murder" in our current culture has been debased to mean any kind of killing, legitimate or not.
You have some wonderful, thought provocing articles, Mr. Whitehead, but this is one area where you are in error. If, in fact, someone is erroneously put to death - and, frankly, I don't believe it happens as often as some would have us believe - then, we do have a God who will sort out the problems when he sends Christ back and we all go before that judgement seat. Those who lie or otherwise cause the wrongful execution of someone will indeed face their own penalties before God, who is a far better judge than we will ever be. Now, before you go into the usual, "Well, then, why don't we let God judge the murderer?" routine, God laid out the law telling US that it was OUR responsibility to protect ourselves using his rules. WE were to carry out the law and the penalties. If, perchance it is discovered here and now that someone did lie and an innocent person was put to death, THAT person dies. It really is as simple as that.
Keith
I was opposed to the death penalty for many years but now I realize the problem is that it takes WAY TOO LONG to carry out. The "Mumia" killer has been on death row longer than the cop he murdered was alive.
Ergo for Richard Allen Davis here in California, far longer on death row than Polly Klaas was alive.
Blacks here in Oakland are 28% of the population but 80% of the crime, in SF 5% of the population but at least half the crime and the same is true of every major urban area in the US.
The rioters in the UK should have received the instant death penalty. Very few innocent people have been executed.
I agree it should be zero but the great thing about the penalty is that none of these murderers will be killing again, it's a 100% deterrent in the case of the particular killers.
I strongly support Ron Paul but there are some nutcases in the libertarian ranks who are out to lunch.
Rothbard strongly supported the death penalty, Rockefeller's takeback of Attica and the LAPD's whipping
of Rodney King. So your leftist intellectual mush is not any official libertarian position.
I wish to respond to this quote: "There is nothing moral or just about the death penalty--certainly not the way it is implemented in America, and anyone who says otherwise is either deluding themselves or trying to get elected by appearing tough on crime."
God told Noah this: GE 9:6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man." The reason that a man should be put to death is because we are made in the image of God. This is a transcendant thing. The reason for doing so isn't disappearing any time soon -- never, in fact.
Interestingly, God allowed David, a murderer, to live. At the same time, God put many to death and used men to carry out these things. Jesus forgave a woman caught in adultery. Thus, it is hard to know how to carry forward the Old Testament commands in that light, really hard.
"RO 13:4 For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."
Some would say, I among them, that it is a further injustice to force the family member of a murdered victim to, through taxes, pay for the murder to be incarcerated and it is made all the worse when they eat better, sleep better, have better health care, better accommodations (libraries and media) than many of the family members of murder victims. If your family member got murdered and you had to pay an extra $20 a month to feed and clothe them the rest of their life, and if that takes away food from the table of your remaining children, how do you square that with justice?
EX 20:22 Then the LORD said to Moses... 21:12 "Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. 13 However, if he does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate. 14 But if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death. 15 "Anyone who attacks* his father or his mother must be put to death. 16 "Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death. 17 "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death."
These are Gods words, not laws made up by man. God is not immoral. These are his standards. I don't see how being opposed to the death penalty itself as immoral can be supported scripturally.
The only challenge for me is to temper judgement with mercy. As James says: "JAS 2:13 because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!"
Further, when a police officer guns down a man who is on a shooting rampage, this is a just carrying out of the command to protect people made in the image of God. He is killed because he won't stop any other way. This is moral. This is just. Do we only shoot to stop a murderer in the act, or, as the Bible indicates, is it correct to mete out punishment for it also, after the fact? Consider this: the Cities of Refuge were to hand over people found guilty of intentional murder, to the avenger. What can be more clear than that?
To follow God is to be both stern and merciful, to order the execution of some and to stay the execution of others. I have to confess it would be a sober thing to actually have to mete out such a sentence. We who are forgiven much do indeed want to be merciful.
I have even considered what I would do if being attacked by someone who can only be stopped from killing me by killing them first. Should I, as a Christian, give up my physical life to give them a bit more time that God may reach them?
What about my family? Do I owe it to them to preserve myself? While I have no zero trouble killing to protect others, yet I struggle about protecting myself if it means killing another?
Do I let a person kill me and take away my children's father and source of support, do I keep me alive for them? Do I instead trust them to God? How do I decide.
If I am to base my beliefs on Scripture, npunishment that includes putting to death a murderer is both just and moral, but it is not to be exclusive of mercy. God himself exemplifies this. It is with intrepidation and prayer that we should carry out our God's standards. We should not apply them with human vengeance, but out of worship and respect for God's laws, his authority and his standards, trusting to him the results. Not for spite. Not to avenge. But to apply justice, in a just way, always mindful of his mercy, yet not to the exclusion of his justice. This is so difficult.
Bill
Yes, this is just another instance -- abolition of the death penalty -- when Left Libertarians and Right Libertarians may agree whole-heartedly with one another. Why, then, do they not combine to "put the screws" to candidates for office, at every level, who stand opposed to the factual, moral, legal, and philosophical reasonableness of abolishing this blemish on the face of our country? Because they are not commonly financed by corporations? Because they do not commonly support a return to the gold standard? Because they are not subsumed by the unthinking/unaccountable tribalism of partisan politics? As you so carefully and cogently point out, there isn't reason or anything else substantial standing in the way of immediately abolishing the death penalty. (Nor, is there anything reasonable standing in the way of a complete reconstitution of our entire penal system.) If like-minded citizens would stand together, the abomination of capital punishment would be gone over night. The profiteers and others who reap benefits from this injustice would be defeated. Do you see a chance that that might happen any time soon? If there is the slimmest chance, it will be because of people like you who continue to beat the drum for sanity and real justice. Thank you.
John Whitehead:
I heard your interview in WVTF this evening.
It sounds as though you have been hanging out with your apostate buddy Franky Schaeffer.
You may make denigrating comments about Christianity, but you know very well the law of God requires the death penalty for capital crimes.
Please take Samuel Rutherford's name off your organization. You'd be better served by becoming a branch office of the ACLU.
Sincerely,
David
You're right. I couldn't agree with you more. The death penalty, as we do it now, is a miscarriage of justice and should be abolished. Lethal injection is just so tacky and tasteless.
The Japanese had the right idea. Instead of forcible execution, we need to bring back mandatory seppuku!
What utter rubbish. So this system must be perfect or eliminated? Will this metric then be used for the entire legal system? The entire welfare system? ad naseum. Has it not been recognized by you we live is and imperfect world? A world in rebellion to its' maker. He had a plan, rejected in the old testament then rejected in the new. Perfection is longed for by all creation so if it's not here and now it will best best to remove evil from the camp once and for all and the ways to determine the evidence, means of judgement and penalties are quite clear in Deuteronomy. Take a peek and then comment on what the Judge of all the earth has missed. cruft
John,
I make an effort to read all your pieces on LRC; I appreciate your work.
Your argument against the death penalty is certainly provocative. The fact that it doesn’t seem to deter the act of murder would seem to lean more toward the fact of the grind of the system, and possibly to the lack of public executions for capital offenses.
However, since God’s word is the final authority, should we reconsider? I’m thinking that your argument could be applied to any civil crime as justice is rarely carried out, much less to biblical standards should one be convicted of rape, theft, fraud, etc.
Do you recall Rushdoony commenting on the plight of the wrongly convicted?
Regards,
Curt
I think the real injustice about the death penalty is discrimination by gender. A man is MUCH more likely to be executed for a crime than a woman who does the exact same thing. Why doesn't this ever get mentioned? If women were the victim of "disparate impact", we'd hear this over and over and over again. But it almost never gets mentioned.
Men are the Rodney Dangerfield of American society. We get no respect.
"It is hard to understand politics if you are hung up on reality. Politicians leave reality to others. What matters in politics is what you can get the voters to believe, whether it bears any resemblance to reality or not."
Thomas
Actually I believe it was George Ryan of Illinois who suspended executions in Illinois. His successor may have signed the legislation.
John.
with DNA evidence catching and trying the criminal is more precise. I'm for the death penalty if it's a 100% air tight case proven with dna and other witness/police evidence. If someone killed a family member or close friend, I'd personally want to see the perp dead and out of society for good, and so would most, except the liberals of course.
-- L. A.
"There is nothing moral or just about the death penalty – certainly not the way it is implemented in America"
Mr. Whitehead, I quit reading your column at this point. No need to read further to know that we are in complete agreement. A quick scan told me that I am familiar with the anecdotal support for your position.
I have long been a believer that the death penalty--justly applied--is morally tenable in a Christian ethos. Jesus, on the cross, did not tell either thief that he was getting a raw deal. (As for His unjust punishment, well, that is utterly unique and beyond this interlocution.)
The late John Paul II (even as a Catholic, I refuse to call him "blessed," for reasons that are another discussion) left the door open the merest crack for the just application of a death penalty. However, his general disparagement of the modern death penalty was technologically-based: suggesting that the state of the art of penology was such that society could be sufficiently protected from the lethal depredations of convicted "stone" killers. Unfortunately, that logic offered no protection whatsoever to fellow prisoners or to prison staff--who are, after all, members of "society."
(Was Jeffrey Dahmer saved? We'll never know, in this life. However, he might have been saved, had he had to face the executioner. And the fact that his fellow-convict murderer faced no lethal consequences for the murder is immensely problematic.)
Anyhow, there is no question at all that our American system of "justice" is light-years from achieving even the general intention to mete out true justice. For that reason, I years ago abandoned my stubborn--albeit qualified--defense of the death penalty in this country.
I admire your work and your writings. Thanks for reading my thoughts.
--
Mark
Dear Mr. Whitehead,
I am a college freshman at UCLA and trying to get my blog (bunburydave.tumblr) going and trying to get into nationally syndicated journalism. I came across your article after being referred to lewrockwell to read about Ron Paul being under appreciated by the press-which he is.
I just wanted to point out this particular line from your article: "...there are 1,371 blacks on death row (42% of the total death row population) despite the fact that blacks only make up 12% of the U.S. population."
It was very misleading to include that blacks make up 12% of the population when the pertinent statistic would have been what percentage of criminals in the United States are black, because only criminals are eligible to be committed to death row. Also, you did not acknowledge any counter argument. Just a little constructive criticism.
Josh
John:
You know I love you and your work.
But on the issue of abolishing the death penalty I believe you are wrong.
First the death penalty is Biblical. You know that. Second, nations and societies that fail to execute capital punishment incur God's wrath, 'blood guiltiness'.
That said, I realize the state - US government is screwed up big time and has executed people wrongly. However, that is not to negate the clear Biblical and historical precedent for capital punishment.
The Bible clearly states that those who fail to administer capital punishment properly at then subject to that punishment. Go back and read Rushdoony's the Institutes of Biblical law on this.
Rather than abolish the death penalty, we should demand it be carried out properly, and if it is not those involved in injustice should be subject to it. That's the proper solution.
When you can make a Biblical and historical argument against the death penalty, I'll listen, but to say because the EU has abolished the death penalty so we should too is a poor argument (and you know it).
To think that Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dalmer, Charles Manson and others don't deserve the death penalty is not only unBiblical but irresponsible.
I greatly respect you and your share with you your fear of the state using its increasing power against its citizens. The answer is to correct this over reach, which its a root cause.
Once again, I greatly respect you and your work. I think you are seriously wrong on this issue and that such a position hurts the institute and damages it's standing for truth and righteousness in the Christain community.
Love you and the Institute.
Gary
In a recent article on Lew Rockwell's web site you write, "Even if most of those condemned to die prove to be guilty, if just one innocent person is wrongly executed, that is still one too many."
I think by this logic one could never justify a death penalty, which is clearly a result at odds with the scriptures.
God seems to equate wrongfully letting the guilty live (which you support, with regrets) with putting to death the innocent (which you think is utterly intolerable to the point of prohibiting the death penalty). Both should be avoided, of course, but mistakes will be made, as God (of course) knows. Your balance would seem to be that one innocent death outweighs letting dozens (hundreds? thousands?) of guilty people live. That is a very common standard among decent and godly men but one I feel is unbiblical and humanistic.
For a good articulation of what I'm referring to, consider listening to the following:
Casey Anthony: Soulless Murderer by Phil Elmore
http://kgov.com/bel/20110707
Thanks for giving this some thought. Enjoy your writing and have for years.
Frederick
Mr. Whitehead,
You make a pragmatic case for the abeyance of death penalty executions. However, unless God is in error himself in having governments do them, the idea remains that if one man sheds another man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God was man made. Further, if such punishment is swift, it brings terror to evil doers said Solomon. The way our appeals processes go, it makes the "swift" part practically non-existent, and thus renders the penalty (if it ever comes) not the deterent it would be. The Bible is clear that justice, if swift, is a deterrent. There is no arguing that. It makes clear the standard that those who murder deserve the death penalty, as the Cities of Refuge give up those who are not found innocent to the avenger of blood. But we do see mercy for David who ordered a murder, for God did not order David's death, the God who declared the standard. Jesus did not stone a woman caught in adultery to death. Those two things, together with your pragmatic considerations leave much room for viewpoints on this. Include the fact that God did not carry out the death of Adam and Eve swiftly but over time, givng them time to repent and call upon God. Perhaps in your conversations, you might speak to the ideal, and the Biblical truths, even while we acknowledge the pragmatic current limitations. I must not be so idealistic that people die needlessly for it. Yet we must not be so pragmatic that we let go of a standard that is fitting. We ought hold both. That's the best I see it. Thank you for explaning your viewpoint more thoroughly.
Bill
Best if all the very bad people are given the opportunity to commit
suicide. Start with the guy in Norway. At the end - God will judge us
all so if there is any doubt; then
the sentence should be a life term
I am not a dedicated Baptist. I have not been to church for years. I am
67 years old.
I was raised as a Christian and I believe in God and I believe you can
not go to heaven except by Jesus Christ.
I have seen shows on the death penalty and it concerns me.
When a convicted criminal is sentenced to death and he is seated to be
executed, the State provides a priest or clergy to stand by his side and
do whatever he can to get the KILLER to ask the Lord to forgive his sins.
We all know that Jesus Christ died on the cross to have God forgive ALL
our sins who ask forgiveness, no matter what the sin or crime, and God
will forgive the person and he will go to heaven.
THAT, is where I have a problem. I don't want the killer to go to Heaven.
I want the killer to do life in prison and be dead a long time before a
clergy or priest can get the person to confess his sins and ask God for
forgiveness and he straight to hell.
That is my opinion.
you are speaking truth to wimpiness. not having the death penalty is the true miscarriage of justice. endless appeals and the different levels of murder are also miscarriages of justice. the death penalty is not there for justice. once an injustice has been done there is only retribution, restitution, revenge and righting a wrong. in any crime there is only injustice, justice has already gone out the window. and for the taking of a human life, deliberately or in the act of another crime, society has the not just the right but the obligation to demand the ultimate penalty for the ultimate crime. you apologists for murderers make me sick. if the founding fathers did not want the death penalty in america they would have specifically included that in the constitution. they knew it was an effective deterrent and the obligation of society to protect its citizens.
Dear Mr. Whitehead,
While there may be times when people have been wrongly charged with, even convicted of, a crime, the death penalty is not a miscarriage of justice by any stretch of the imagination. The death penalty was a penalty instituted by God to protect society against those who had become so spiritually corrupt that they had degenerated to the level of murder, adultery, homosexuality, etc. No matter who says otherwise, the death penalty is a perfectly legitimate punishment that actually raises the dignity of human life back to the level where if a person takes a life he pays for it with his own. Period. And those who are the family of the victim should get the first opportunity to throw the switch, pull the lever for the hangman, whatever.
What has happened in our culture is we have so debased the value of human life that we simply allow crime to happen with minimum punishment. Courts bargain with the lawyers of the criminal while the victim/victim's family has little or no input into that process. That is a travesty! Godly designed justice is always based upon restitution. Under that system, if you steal, you pay back double the value of what you stole. If you cannot, you are sold to indentured servitude until you work off what you owe. If you kill someone, you die, unless the killing was accidental. Then there are even specific consequences and ways of dealing with that situation.
The commandment, "Thou shalt not 'kill,'" has been so abused by the God haters because the original intent of the commandment was thou shalt not MURDER, or kill without cause. And, of course, the word "murder" in our current culture has been debased to mean any kind of killing, legitimate or not.
You have some wonderful, thought provocing articles, Mr. Whitehead, but this is one area where you are in error. If, in fact, someone is erroneously put to death - and, frankly, I don't believe it happens as often as some would have us believe - then, we do have a God who will sort out the problems when he sends Christ back and we all go before that judgement seat. Those who lie or otherwise cause the wrongful execution of someone will indeed face their own penalties before God, who is a far better judge than we will ever be. Now, before you go into the usual, "Well, then, why don't we let God judge the murderer?" routine, God laid out the law telling US that it was OUR responsibility to protect ourselves using his rules. WE were to carry out the law and the penalties. If, perchance it is discovered here and now that someone did lie and an innocent person was put to death, THAT person dies. It really is as simple as that.
Keith
I was opposed to the death penalty for many years but now I realize the problem is that it takes WAY TOO LONG to carry out. The "Mumia" killer has been on death row longer than the cop he murdered was alive.
Ergo for Richard Allen Davis here in California, far longer on death row than Polly Klaas was alive.
Blacks here in Oakland are 28% of the population but 80% of the crime, in SF 5% of the population but at least half the crime and the same is true of every major urban area in the US.
The rioters in the UK should have received the instant death penalty. Very few innocent people have been executed.
I agree it should be zero but the great thing about the penalty is that none of these murderers will be killing again, it's a 100% deterrent in the case of the particular killers.
I strongly support Ron Paul but there are some nutcases in the libertarian ranks who are out to lunch.
Rothbard strongly supported the death penalty, Rockefeller's takeback of Attica and the LAPD's whipping
of Rodney King. So your leftist intellectual mush is not any official libertarian position.
I wish to respond to this quote: "There is nothing moral or just about the death penalty--certainly not the way it is implemented in America, and anyone who says otherwise is either deluding themselves or trying to get elected by appearing tough on crime."
God told Noah this: GE 9:6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man." The reason that a man should be put to death is because we are made in the image of God. This is a transcendant thing. The reason for doing so isn't disappearing any time soon -- never, in fact.
Interestingly, God allowed David, a murderer, to live. At the same time, God put many to death and used men to carry out these things. Jesus forgave a woman caught in adultery. Thus, it is hard to know how to carry forward the Old Testament commands in that light, really hard.
"RO 13:4 For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."
Some would say, I among them, that it is a further injustice to force the family member of a murdered victim to, through taxes, pay for the murder to be incarcerated and it is made all the worse when they eat better, sleep better, have better health care, better accommodations (libraries and media) than many of the family members of murder victims. If your family member got murdered and you had to pay an extra $20 a month to feed and clothe them the rest of their life, and if that takes away food from the table of your remaining children, how do you square that with justice?
EX 20:22 Then the LORD said to Moses... 21:12 "Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. 13 However, if he does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate. 14 But if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death. 15 "Anyone who attacks* his father or his mother must be put to death. 16 "Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death. 17 "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death."
These are Gods words, not laws made up by man. God is not immoral. These are his standards. I don't see how being opposed to the death penalty itself as immoral can be supported scripturally.
The only challenge for me is to temper judgement with mercy. As James says: "JAS 2:13 because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!"
Further, when a police officer guns down a man who is on a shooting rampage, this is a just carrying out of the command to protect people made in the image of God. He is killed because he won't stop any other way. This is moral. This is just. Do we only shoot to stop a murderer in the act, or, as the Bible indicates, is it correct to mete out punishment for it also, after the fact? Consider this: the Cities of Refuge were to hand over people found guilty of intentional murder, to the avenger. What can be more clear than that?
To follow God is to be both stern and merciful, to order the execution of some and to stay the execution of others. I have to confess it would be a sober thing to actually have to mete out such a sentence. We who are forgiven much do indeed want to be merciful.
I have even considered what I would do if being attacked by someone who can only be stopped from killing me by killing them first. Should I, as a Christian, give up my physical life to give them a bit more time that God may reach them?
What about my family? Do I owe it to them to preserve myself? While I have no zero trouble killing to protect others, yet I struggle about protecting myself if it means killing another?
Do I let a person kill me and take away my children's father and source of support, do I keep me alive for them? Do I instead trust them to God? How do I decide.
If I am to base my beliefs on Scripture, npunishment that includes putting to death a murderer is both just and moral, but it is not to be exclusive of mercy. God himself exemplifies this. It is with intrepidation and prayer that we should carry out our God's standards. We should not apply them with human vengeance, but out of worship and respect for God's laws, his authority and his standards, trusting to him the results. Not for spite. Not to avenge. But to apply justice, in a just way, always mindful of his mercy, yet not to the exclusion of his justice. This is so difficult.
Bill
Yes, this is just another instance -- abolition of the death penalty -- when Left Libertarians and Right Libertarians may agree whole-heartedly with one another. Why, then, do they not combine to "put the screws" to candidates for office, at every level, who stand opposed to the factual, moral, legal, and philosophical reasonableness of abolishing this blemish on the face of our country? Because they are not commonly financed by corporations? Because they do not commonly support a return to the gold standard? Because they are not subsumed by the unthinking/unaccountable tribalism of partisan politics? As you so carefully and cogently point out, there isn't reason or anything else substantial standing in the way of immediately abolishing the death penalty. (Nor, is there anything reasonable standing in the way of a complete reconstitution of our entire penal system.) If like-minded citizens would stand together, the abomination of capital punishment would be gone over night. The profiteers and others who reap benefits from this injustice would be defeated. Do you see a chance that that might happen any time soon? If there is the slimmest chance, it will be because of people like you who continue to beat the drum for sanity and real justice. Thank you.
John Whitehead:
I heard your interview in WVTF this evening.
It sounds as though you have been hanging out with your apostate buddy Franky Schaeffer.
You may make denigrating comments about Christianity, but you know very well the law of God requires the death penalty for capital crimes.
Please take Samuel Rutherford's name off your organization. You'd be better served by becoming a branch office of the ACLU.
Sincerely,
David
You're right. I couldn't agree with you more. The death penalty, as we do it now, is a miscarriage of justice and should be abolished. Lethal injection is just so tacky and tasteless.
The Japanese had the right idea. Instead of forcible execution, we need to bring back mandatory seppuku!
What utter rubbish. So this system must be perfect or eliminated? Will this metric then be used for the entire legal system? The entire welfare system? ad naseum. Has it not been recognized by you we live is and imperfect world? A world in rebellion to its' maker. He had a plan, rejected in the old testament then rejected in the new. Perfection is longed for by all creation so if it's not here and now it will best best to remove evil from the camp once and for all and the ways to determine the evidence, means of judgement and penalties are quite clear in Deuteronomy. Take a peek and then comment on what the Judge of all the earth has missed. cruft
John,
I make an effort to read all your pieces on LRC; I appreciate your work.
Your argument against the death penalty is certainly provocative. The fact that it doesn’t seem to deter the act of murder would seem to lean more toward the fact of the grind of the system, and possibly to the lack of public executions for capital offenses.
However, since God’s word is the final authority, should we reconsider? I’m thinking that your argument could be applied to any civil crime as justice is rarely carried out, much less to biblical standards should one be convicted of rape, theft, fraud, etc.
Do you recall Rushdoony commenting on the plight of the wrongly convicted?
Regards,
Curt
I think the real injustice about the death penalty is discrimination by gender. A man is MUCH more likely to be executed for a crime than a woman who does the exact same thing. Why doesn't this ever get mentioned? If women were the victim of "disparate impact", we'd hear this over and over and over again. But it almost never gets mentioned.
Men are the Rodney Dangerfield of American society. We get no respect.
"It is hard to understand politics if you are hung up on reality. Politicians leave reality to others. What matters in politics is what you can get the voters to believe, whether it bears any resemblance to reality or not."
Thomas
Actually I believe it was George Ryan of Illinois who suspended executions in Illinois. His successor may have signed the legislation.
John.
with DNA evidence catching and trying the criminal is more precise. I'm for the death penalty if it's a 100% air tight case proven with dna and other witness/police evidence. If someone killed a family member or close friend, I'd personally want to see the perp dead and out of society for good, and so would most, except the liberals of course.
-- L. A.
"There is nothing moral or just about the death penalty – certainly not the way it is implemented in America"
Mr. Whitehead, I quit reading your column at this point. No need to read further to know that we are in complete agreement. A quick scan told me that I am familiar with the anecdotal support for your position.
I have long been a believer that the death penalty--justly applied--is morally tenable in a Christian ethos. Jesus, on the cross, did not tell either thief that he was getting a raw deal. (As for His unjust punishment, well, that is utterly unique and beyond this interlocution.)
The late John Paul II (even as a Catholic, I refuse to call him "blessed," for reasons that are another discussion) left the door open the merest crack for the just application of a death penalty. However, his general disparagement of the modern death penalty was technologically-based: suggesting that the state of the art of penology was such that society could be sufficiently protected from the lethal depredations of convicted "stone" killers. Unfortunately, that logic offered no protection whatsoever to fellow prisoners or to prison staff--who are, after all, members of "society."
(Was Jeffrey Dahmer saved? We'll never know, in this life. However, he might have been saved, had he had to face the executioner. And the fact that his fellow-convict murderer faced no lethal consequences for the murder is immensely problematic.)
Anyhow, there is no question at all that our American system of "justice" is light-years from achieving even the general intention to mete out true justice. For that reason, I years ago abandoned my stubborn--albeit qualified--defense of the death penalty in this country.
I admire your work and your writings. Thanks for reading my thoughts.
--
Mark
Dear Mr. Whitehead,
I am a college freshman at UCLA and trying to get my blog (bunburydave.tumblr) going and trying to get into nationally syndicated journalism. I came across your article after being referred to lewrockwell to read about Ron Paul being under appreciated by the press-which he is.
I just wanted to point out this particular line from your article: "...there are 1,371 blacks on death row (42% of the total death row population) despite the fact that blacks only make up 12% of the U.S. population."
It was very misleading to include that blacks make up 12% of the population when the pertinent statistic would have been what percentage of criminals in the United States are black, because only criminals are eligible to be committed to death row. Also, you did not acknowledge any counter argument. Just a little constructive criticism.
Josh
John:
You know I love you and your work.
But on the issue of abolishing the death penalty I believe you are wrong.
First the death penalty is Biblical. You know that. Second, nations and societies that fail to execute capital punishment incur God's wrath, 'blood guiltiness'.
That said, I realize the state - US government is screwed up big time and has executed people wrongly. However, that is not to negate the clear Biblical and historical precedent for capital punishment.
The Bible clearly states that those who fail to administer capital punishment properly at then subject to that punishment. Go back and read Rushdoony's the Institutes of Biblical law on this.
Rather than abolish the death penalty, we should demand it be carried out properly, and if it is not those involved in injustice should be subject to it. That's the proper solution.
When you can make a Biblical and historical argument against the death penalty, I'll listen, but to say because the EU has abolished the death penalty so we should too is a poor argument (and you know it).
To think that Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dalmer, Charles Manson and others don't deserve the death penalty is not only unBiblical but irresponsible.
I greatly respect you and your share with you your fear of the state using its increasing power against its citizens. The answer is to correct this over reach, which its a root cause.
Once again, I greatly respect you and your work. I think you are seriously wrong on this issue and that such a position hurts the institute and damages it's standing for truth and righteousness in the Christain community.
Love you and the Institute.
Gary
In a recent article on Lew Rockwell's web site you write, "Even if most of those condemned to die prove to be guilty, if just one innocent person is wrongly executed, that is still one too many."
I think by this logic one could never justify a death penalty, which is clearly a result at odds with the scriptures.
God seems to equate wrongfully letting the guilty live (which you support, with regrets) with putting to death the innocent (which you think is utterly intolerable to the point of prohibiting the death penalty). Both should be avoided, of course, but mistakes will be made, as God (of course) knows. Your balance would seem to be that one innocent death outweighs letting dozens (hundreds? thousands?) of guilty people live. That is a very common standard among decent and godly men but one I feel is unbiblical and humanistic.
For a good articulation of what I'm referring to, consider listening to the following:
Casey Anthony: Soulless Murderer by Phil Elmore
http://kgov.com/bel/20110707
Thanks for giving this some thought. Enjoy your writing and have for years.
Frederick
Mr. Whitehead,
You make a pragmatic case for the abeyance of death penalty executions. However, unless God is in error himself in having governments do them, the idea remains that if one man sheds another man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God was man made. Further, if such punishment is swift, it brings terror to evil doers said Solomon. The way our appeals processes go, it makes the "swift" part practically non-existent, and thus renders the penalty (if it ever comes) not the deterent it would be. The Bible is clear that justice, if swift, is a deterrent. There is no arguing that. It makes clear the standard that those who murder deserve the death penalty, as the Cities of Refuge give up those who are not found innocent to the avenger of blood. But we do see mercy for David who ordered a murder, for God did not order David's death, the God who declared the standard. Jesus did not stone a woman caught in adultery to death. Those two things, together with your pragmatic considerations leave much room for viewpoints on this. Include the fact that God did not carry out the death of Adam and Eve swiftly but over time, givng them time to repent and call upon God. Perhaps in your conversations, you might speak to the ideal, and the Biblical truths, even while we acknowledge the pragmatic current limitations. I must not be so idealistic that people die needlessly for it. Yet we must not be so pragmatic that we let go of a standard that is fitting. We ought hold both. That's the best I see it. Thank you for explaning your viewpoint more thoroughly.
Bill
Best if all the very bad people are given the opportunity to commit
suicide. Start with the guy in Norway. At the end - God will judge us
all so if there is any doubt; then
the sentence should be a life term
Monday, August 15, 2011
Rutherford Institute Urges Gov. McDonnell to Reconsider Virginia’s Death Penalty Policy, Stop Jackson Execution
Click Here to Read the Press Release
Gee Guys? Rape and murder of the elderly isn't worthy of the death penalty? Reformative JUSTICE? Where was the justice for defenseless 88 year old Ruth Phillips?
I guess removing the Ten Commandments from site in public education removes any serious mind damage to those who don't see them-- and yours too?
Has TRI gone mad because those you are pandering to are not going to provide financial aid to your ill focused defense!
No doubt he deserves to be punished? And rate of recidivism on such people who are placed in peril by "reformative Justice?
DD
I have enjoyed reading many of John's opinions and have found myself agreeing with a vast majority
of them.
This is one that I find myself in opposition to. My reasons are the following.
One: For crimes of this nature, I am in favor of the death penalty.
Two: The heinousness of this crime cries out for this type of penalty.
Three: There are many in our society who have been subjected to abuse as children who
manage to live out their lives without committing acts of violence against others.
What if the jurors had been given a "complete picture", of the abuse, his attorneys claim Mr Jackson
was subjected to as a child, and the jury still found for the death penalty?
If one is opposed to the death penalty, for any crime, then those in opposition will always argue that
the guilty have not received a fair trial, or that there are mitigating circumstances to warrant undoing
a lawful verdict.
Sincerely,
Stephen
Gee Guys? Rape and murder of the elderly isn't worthy of the death penalty? Reformative JUSTICE? Where was the justice for defenseless 88 year old Ruth Phillips?
I guess removing the Ten Commandments from site in public education removes any serious mind damage to those who don't see them-- and yours too?
Has TRI gone mad because those you are pandering to are not going to provide financial aid to your ill focused defense!
No doubt he deserves to be punished? And rate of recidivism on such people who are placed in peril by "reformative Justice?
DD
I have enjoyed reading many of John's opinions and have found myself agreeing with a vast majority
of them.
This is one that I find myself in opposition to. My reasons are the following.
One: For crimes of this nature, I am in favor of the death penalty.
Two: The heinousness of this crime cries out for this type of penalty.
Three: There are many in our society who have been subjected to abuse as children who
manage to live out their lives without committing acts of violence against others.
What if the jurors had been given a "complete picture", of the abuse, his attorneys claim Mr Jackson
was subjected to as a child, and the jury still found for the death penalty?
If one is opposed to the death penalty, for any crime, then those in opposition will always argue that
the guilty have not received a fair trial, or that there are mitigating circumstances to warrant undoing
a lawful verdict.
Sincerely,
Stephen
Monday, August 8, 2011
Is the Christian Right Getting Fooled Again?
Click Here to Read the Commentary
Aloha Mr. Rutherford!
This is yet ANOTHER article that makes me thankful I receive your newsletter! Mahalo!
I know you are a man of faith, and yet you choose not to blindly follow the "men" that profess "I am the way..." I respect your honesty.
I never quite know what to expect in my inbox, and that does intrigue me... Writings like this, documents and speeches from King, actions from J. Wallis, writings of John Deare, all move in the direction that Christ laid out for all to learn from... Too bad the riches of life enthrall so many...
Keep up the good work, Sir,
Malama Pono,
Mike
Thank you for posting this. I don't know how many Christians will read it much less heed your caution. I believeas a Christian who has a bit of Spiritual Discernment, that Rick Perry is a shrewd and consumate politician who will use every trick in the book, even if it means trying to decieve the people of God.
Bettye
You email is a good one but let me say this as a person whose family The Bowery Sullivans have been involved in politics since 1890---all Churches become somewhat political and at the turn of the century Irish Catholic priest asked the parishioners to vote for Tammany as it looked after the immigrant and Jewish district leaders and local politicians always worked the local temple.
We have had priests and ministers involved in the ant-war movement and run for elective office.
All of this without disgracing their cloth like Fr. Coughlin or Fr, Feeney.
I do believe that Rick Perry is treading on dangerous ground and is exciting people who call this country a Christian country. Very dangerous.
Tim
Was not Joseph raised to power? Moses? Joshua? Paul? Paul was a powerful person before his conversion. He used that power when he needed to, calling on his Roman citizenship etc. Maybe the reason Jesus was not more political was because he knew his ministry in the flesh was not going to last long. Many Christians believe their lack of involvement, years ago, is at least partly to blame for the mess we are in in America, today. Jesus must be lifted up in all areas of life, including politics.
I am a retired pastor living in an eastern Tennessee small community. We live among good people, yet they are not known for progressive thoughts and actions. Your articles (especially the one published on August 12: "Is the Christian Right getting fooled?") are very welcomed. Many thanks for your continued thoughts and reflections as you challenge us as a gadfly. Peace and Hope - William
Aloha Mr. Rutherford!
This is yet ANOTHER article that makes me thankful I receive your newsletter! Mahalo!
I know you are a man of faith, and yet you choose not to blindly follow the "men" that profess "I am the way..." I respect your honesty.
I never quite know what to expect in my inbox, and that does intrigue me... Writings like this, documents and speeches from King, actions from J. Wallis, writings of John Deare, all move in the direction that Christ laid out for all to learn from... Too bad the riches of life enthrall so many...
Keep up the good work, Sir,
Malama Pono,
Mike
Thank you for posting this. I don't know how many Christians will read it much less heed your caution. I believeas a Christian who has a bit of Spiritual Discernment, that Rick Perry is a shrewd and consumate politician who will use every trick in the book, even if it means trying to decieve the people of God.
Bettye
You email is a good one but let me say this as a person whose family The Bowery Sullivans have been involved in politics since 1890---all Churches become somewhat political and at the turn of the century Irish Catholic priest asked the parishioners to vote for Tammany as it looked after the immigrant and Jewish district leaders and local politicians always worked the local temple.
We have had priests and ministers involved in the ant-war movement and run for elective office.
All of this without disgracing their cloth like Fr. Coughlin or Fr, Feeney.
I do believe that Rick Perry is treading on dangerous ground and is exciting people who call this country a Christian country. Very dangerous.
Tim
Was not Joseph raised to power? Moses? Joshua? Paul? Paul was a powerful person before his conversion. He used that power when he needed to, calling on his Roman citizenship etc. Maybe the reason Jesus was not more political was because he knew his ministry in the flesh was not going to last long. Many Christians believe their lack of involvement, years ago, is at least partly to blame for the mess we are in in America, today. Jesus must be lifted up in all areas of life, including politics.
I am a retired pastor living in an eastern Tennessee small community. We live among good people, yet they are not known for progressive thoughts and actions. Your articles (especially the one published on August 12: "Is the Christian Right getting fooled?") are very welcomed. Many thanks for your continued thoughts and reflections as you challenge us as a gadfly. Peace and Hope - William
Television News: Are We Amusing Ourselves to Death?
Click Here to Read the Commentary
I totally enjoyed reading your two part editorial on the Media. We get it in a small town paper(The Pilot News). In my lifetime I've seen the media go from real reporting to the garbage they now spout as the news. In my own situation of being an Amateur Radio Operator, I've learned to look elsewhere for fact on shortwave, but even here you must have the salt shaker handy. It appears that the purpose of the whole thing is the dumbing down of the American Public so we will sit and be complacent little "subjects" with no mind of our own except what we are told by the talking heads of the networks. The edited stories of the news should start with "Once upon a time....".
I look forward to your further articles. They are read and discussed here in "flyover country".
Frank
Hi, Mr. Whitehead,
I am for freedom and agree with much of what you say. I agree with what you say about television "news" being little more than entertainment. But you also list Sean Hannity among some of these "entertainers" and I would like to ask you to reconsider. I also wonder why you have chosen to include him. Mr. Hannity speaks out for freedom, like you do. He delves into the issues and the lies of the mainstream media and shows how we are losing our freedoms. He informs us of what is really happening in America so that we can take a stand for what is right.
You include Mr. Hannity in your judgement of : Yet these talking heads are little more than Wizard of Oz-like front men for the powers-that-be, the mega corporations whose sphere of influence extends from the newsroom to the nexus of political power, Washington, DC.
Please do not attack and criticize people who are also fighting for our freedoms as you do, just because they may use a different medium then you do. Mr. Hannity is reaching people with the truth.
Again, I ask you to please reconsider attacking people who are fighting for truth and freedom in America.
Thank you,
Theresa
Your article which appeared in a local Wisconsin paper as "TV news gives a biased view of the world," was read with interest and appreciation. However, I believe that the article would be more accurate and pertinent if the following were eliminated or revised.
"In our media-dominated age, news personalities such as Bill O'Reilly, Chris Matthews, Sean Hannity, and Rachel Maddow, among others, dispense the news with power and certainty like preachers used to dispense religion and boast vast viewerships that hang on their every word." I have never felt these personalities were. "...dispensing the news." Rather, it is opinion, commentary, ideology, etc. Often their presentations are bracketed by opposing points of view. There is abundant evidence that the "NEWS" is biased. There is no need to created "straw men" to prove your points.
"Clearly, there can be little hope for objective reporting in an environment ..." A M E N ! "
Howard
Dear Staff,
Your institution espouses dedication to addressing serious issues ignored by the main stream media. What a joke. Where were you guys when Obama’s association with Bill Ayers, a know domestic terrorist, and Jeremiah Wright, a black liberation theology proponent, were being overlooked? Where were you when government influence on financial institutions forced them to provide home mortgages to people who could not afford them, thus creating an economic downturn with global ramifications? More recently, where is your expose on HR4646, a bill currently being snuck through Washington which puts a 1% tax on personal bank deposits?
Your president, John Whitehead, tells us the main stream media does not provide credible news. He indicates we need to go on the internet for the truth. He refers to Arianna Huffington as a vanguard in integrating news with social media. That reveals your true political slant, which is obviously based on a very socialistic agenda. Credible? What a joke!
Respectfully yours,
Joe
Dear Mr. Whitehead:
Thank you for your column on the news media lacking investigative reporting and news. I was talking Wednesday to a group of senior citizens about Montana's historical lack of investigative reporting due to Anaconda Copper and its electrical arm Montana Power owning the papers till out-of-state corporation bought the papers to sell ads, and TV news no long subject to a fairness doctrine. A gentleman in the audience said, see Whitehead's columns in the current Belgrade News. I looked, and there was your excellent column -- on the page facing my own guest opinion piece on social security law in Montana in 1923. I appreciate the work you are doing through your column and institute. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Anne
I totally enjoyed reading your two part editorial on the Media. We get it in a small town paper(The Pilot News). In my lifetime I've seen the media go from real reporting to the garbage they now spout as the news. In my own situation of being an Amateur Radio Operator, I've learned to look elsewhere for fact on shortwave, but even here you must have the salt shaker handy. It appears that the purpose of the whole thing is the dumbing down of the American Public so we will sit and be complacent little "subjects" with no mind of our own except what we are told by the talking heads of the networks. The edited stories of the news should start with "Once upon a time....".
I look forward to your further articles. They are read and discussed here in "flyover country".
Frank
Hi, Mr. Whitehead,
I am for freedom and agree with much of what you say. I agree with what you say about television "news" being little more than entertainment. But you also list Sean Hannity among some of these "entertainers" and I would like to ask you to reconsider. I also wonder why you have chosen to include him. Mr. Hannity speaks out for freedom, like you do. He delves into the issues and the lies of the mainstream media and shows how we are losing our freedoms. He informs us of what is really happening in America so that we can take a stand for what is right.
You include Mr. Hannity in your judgement of : Yet these talking heads are little more than Wizard of Oz-like front men for the powers-that-be, the mega corporations whose sphere of influence extends from the newsroom to the nexus of political power, Washington, DC.
Please do not attack and criticize people who are also fighting for our freedoms as you do, just because they may use a different medium then you do. Mr. Hannity is reaching people with the truth.
Again, I ask you to please reconsider attacking people who are fighting for truth and freedom in America.
Thank you,
Theresa
Your article which appeared in a local Wisconsin paper as "TV news gives a biased view of the world," was read with interest and appreciation. However, I believe that the article would be more accurate and pertinent if the following were eliminated or revised.
"In our media-dominated age, news personalities such as Bill O'Reilly, Chris Matthews, Sean Hannity, and Rachel Maddow, among others, dispense the news with power and certainty like preachers used to dispense religion and boast vast viewerships that hang on their every word." I have never felt these personalities were. "...dispensing the news." Rather, it is opinion, commentary, ideology, etc. Often their presentations are bracketed by opposing points of view. There is abundant evidence that the "NEWS" is biased. There is no need to created "straw men" to prove your points.
"Clearly, there can be little hope for objective reporting in an environment ..." A M E N ! "
Howard
Dear Staff,
Your institution espouses dedication to addressing serious issues ignored by the main stream media. What a joke. Where were you guys when Obama’s association with Bill Ayers, a know domestic terrorist, and Jeremiah Wright, a black liberation theology proponent, were being overlooked? Where were you when government influence on financial institutions forced them to provide home mortgages to people who could not afford them, thus creating an economic downturn with global ramifications? More recently, where is your expose on HR4646, a bill currently being snuck through Washington which puts a 1% tax on personal bank deposits?
Your president, John Whitehead, tells us the main stream media does not provide credible news. He indicates we need to go on the internet for the truth. He refers to Arianna Huffington as a vanguard in integrating news with social media. That reveals your true political slant, which is obviously based on a very socialistic agenda. Credible? What a joke!
Respectfully yours,
Joe
Dear Mr. Whitehead:
Thank you for your column on the news media lacking investigative reporting and news. I was talking Wednesday to a group of senior citizens about Montana's historical lack of investigative reporting due to Anaconda Copper and its electrical arm Montana Power owning the papers till out-of-state corporation bought the papers to sell ads, and TV news no long subject to a fairness doctrine. A gentleman in the audience said, see Whitehead's columns in the current Belgrade News. I looked, and there was your excellent column -- on the page facing my own guest opinion piece on social security law in Montana in 1923. I appreciate the work you are doing through your column and institute. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Anne
Monday, August 1, 2011
The Plight of Marco Sauceda and the Loss of Our Freedoms
Click Here to Read the Commentary
You article amazes me. Of all the examples to use about our civil liberties and you choose to write about an Honduran immigrant who speaks no english. The police were called there because a concerned neighbor saw a man kicking in a door. Even the most prudent of liberals like yourself should see that the police were obligated to respond and investigate. The police, probably speaking english....god forbid, instructed the man several times to show himself. He didn't. So the police handled it. A police invasion? Not at all, they were called, they responded and had a duty to investigate. Not the fault of the police that the man doesn't speak english. Poor poor Mr. Sauceda. If you want my sympathy you wont find it for an Honduran immigrant. You make it out like the cops were monsters. Like they were just driving along and picked out some illegal immigrant to mess with. The best part of your article is when you say, "When the police did finally get Sauceda out of the bathroom, they pepper-sprayed him, shot him with a pepper ball gun and wrestled him to the ground." WOW. The police probably did it for no reason. I'm sure the Honduran immigrant who speaks no english and has the mind of a child was totally cooperative. I'm sure the police probably just got done watching porn in their cars and decided to kick the crap out of a brown person. Very compelling human story.
You and other Liberal minded folk often speak of revolution, not in the war sense. But that each individual is responsible to guard our freedoms and not let the government take that away from us. News flash........most people are sheep. They are scared. They want to wake up, drink their coffee. Put the kids on the bus, go to work and not be bothered. I, like you desire change. But our children are raised to be politically correct and passive. Do you think our Founding Father's were passive??
No, i don't think they were. They believed they could make a difference, they could stand with other Patriots and fight off oppression and tyranny. That passion is gone. Most don't have the intestinal fortitude to fight. I served my country in the Marine's and have a deep love for this country, as you do. Today I serve the Commonwealth as a State Trooper, and have been one for nine years. I have a wife and 3 children. I do it because hopefully i can make a difference and ensure a brighter future for all of our families. But sometimes when i read your paranoid articles about the police and how they misuse their power, it makes me mad. I am not blind to police corruption. But most of us are good honest people. Who love this country. But it is a difficult job. Especially when people don't trust us.
I look forward to hearing from you. I know this was a little sarcastic but obviously we have different point of views. I respect your views and agree that our government may not always be on our side. But the police are pawns in a bigger struggle to take this country back. I desire a revolution. One that will change our government. But I, like most other Americans, have jobs, families and have bills to pay. So i guess it will just have to wait.
I will continue to read your articles.
Sincerely,
Matthew
Mr. Whitehead,
I read today your excellent column in the Richmond Times-Dispatch. Very well said. I have added you to my short list of modern-day American Patriots. At this point my list includes You, Deroy Murdock, A. Barton Hinkle, and the entire Richmond Times-Dispatch Op/Ed staff.
"The similarities to pre-Revolutionary America are startling." What is even more startling to me is the complacency of a people that call themselves free. You are right. This persistent creep of tyranny has been so slow that it has lulled us to sleep. So many of us have ceded our free will -- to the common good-- for so long, we no longer recognize tyranny. This theft of liberty, and autonomy, is exactly the same type of violation that ignited the American Revolution. Yet, today, we shrug it off as if it were nothing.
"Every successful revolution puts on in time the robes of the tyrant it has deposed." Barbara Tuchman
I eagerly await your next column. Godspeed my friend.
Sincerely,
Kevin
p.s. Please, if i might indulge you a bit further and quote Orwell. "Sometimes it is the duty of intelligent men to restate the obvious." Duty calls you sir. I humbly suggest that you get on with it.
"The U.S. Supreme Court effectively decimated the Fourth Amendment in an 8-1 ruling in Kentucky v. King by giving police more leeway to smash down doors of homes or apartments without a warrant when in search of illegal drugs which they suspect might be destroyed if the Fourth Amendment requirement of a warrant were followed."
This ruling is very disturbing. What is the point of having a 4th Amendment? how could 8 justices rule in favor of unlawful entry? What can we do to reverse this? I've lived in communist countries in my work, and it is normal for police to smash down doors whenever they like - and now the U.S. is no different.
Kurt
"In a very real sense, we truly are back to where we started in those pre-Revolutionary War days, seemingly having learned next to nothing from those early days of tyranny at the hands of the British crown." (The Plight of Marco Sauceda and the Loss of Our Freedoms)
Exactly. And it's been like that for decades, in my estimation. This is a major, major problem for Americans, even if few recognize it.
Not much difference in freedom from London, London Ontario, and Loudoun County.
Doug
Dear John
For some time it has seemed obvious to me that the goal of government was to criminalize the population. Once we have all been individually maligned, impugned or discredited we will distrust each other and view one another through a cloud of suspicion. This will allow the government, through legislation and a dependent, subservient police force to peel away the most egregious objectors to totalitarianism in the name of public safety. Even if we know that it is wrong, the pall of guilt cast upon everyone (aided by a complicit media) will paralyze us into inaction. As that begins to happen, Mr. Sauceda was just a "disposable" test case, I am going to miss you.
Sincerely,
Paul
USA is an evil torturing nation of it's own innocent citizens
And that is the damn truth.... 100% truth.
I am talking about many thousands of innocent Americans who have been put on a totally Unconstitutional 24/7/365 Patriot Act Sanctioned Organized Stalking Program-- where they not only surveil you, they vandalize your property, character assassinate you everywhere you go and in your home and hotels they bath you with painful directed energy weapon assaults. I have found numerous cops involved in this... retired cops, marines, former military and they have used these same type electronic torture weapons on my 78 year old mother when I stayed at her home in San Diego for a time after getting driven out of my home in Nashua, NH by extremely painful directed energy weapons. So don't tell me this is a good country.... we have an evil Government and through decades past the government is no better than the people who have been in charge. In the United States today--- across the entire nation, Americans charged with no crime, under investigation for no crime are having National Security Letters issued against them and mostly for vigilante- vendetta reasons that has nothing to do with terrorism. This can be kicked off by people in the government who are using the program that was most likely developed to deal with sleeper cell terrorists as a vendetta tool for gripes they cowardly cannot handle as a man or woman so they have their adversary in some non terrorist related issue put on this fucking program from hell. There is a shitload of people going through this. I am only one. And I am not putting up with i,t I can guarantee you that.
Once the Posse Comitatus Act was suspended in 2007 this kicked into high gear by war mongering self righteous evil bastards who think they are protecting America from terrorists when in reality they are torturing and harassing innocent Americans.
A bogus SAR report and the an NSL is issued... you have no day in court and then you are put on this goddamn program. God Bless Stasi America.
This Government is torturing thousands of their citizens.... You tell me that is a good government. There are a lot of websites that explain what is happening with this. This one I think is the most accurate. The website is by married couple with 3 children and they too have had to move around the country to try to get some relief. Which really doesn't work.
Sheriff Bill Gore in San Diego said " his name does not come up in my computer", after he ran my dob, ss#. drivers license number. And yet in San Diego I was hit with both government sponsored Patriot Act organized stalking 24/7/365 and painful directed energy weapons torture for hundreds of night and watched my 77 year old mother as she would be crying from the pain saying, " why did you bring this to my house." Captain Peter Segal of the Nashua, NH police Dept said " you are not under investigation for any crime." And my story is one of many thousands.. and growing Americans being put on this harassment, provocation, torturing 24/7/365 program.
So you look into this you moral high road truth seekers-- And let's see what the hell you do with the SPIN on this --- and then you will find out if what I am saying is the fucking truth or just stay Government Propaganda Specialists.
http://www.torturedinamerica.org/
Jeff
Just read this Op/Ed from August 1, 2011. Thanks for speaking up. I am really upset at the destruction of our personal liberties. The strip searching at the airports is one example. The government using imminent domain to steal people's property is another. The city of Raleigh sends letters to elderly in their 80s threatening a lawsuit if they don't sign over their property for less than 50% of the value the city assessed the property for tax purposes. They always time these letters to arrive right before a long vacation like Thanksgiving or Christmas to torture the recipient to the max. The reason for the imminent domain - to build a 50 foot wide bike path down the center of their property.
How's this: I'm driving down the Interstate. A driver in a one ton pickup truck who had been going 85 mpg earlier up the road is now blocking the highway, cruising at 55 (70 mph speed limit) is the left lane, neck and neck with another car in the right lane. I pull between the two lanes to try to see around the two vehicles. A state trooper pulls me over. First words out of his mouth: "Where are you going in such a hurry." Duh, I wasn't going anywhere, was I? So I answer "Nowhere." Answer seems obvious to me. I was going nowhere fast before he pulled me and nowhere at all sitting on the side of the road. So he gives me a ticket for following too closely. I'm wondering, what the hell does that mean? Where is his subjective data supporting that? I am 55 and have not had a traffic ticket in 39 years. Over the following days, I ask friends, including a coworker whose husband works with this state trooper, just what does that ticket mean. They are all amazed and say the only time they have ever heard someone getting a ticket for driving too closely is when they are involved in an accident. So I go to court, on my birthday, using up one of my valuable vacation days. About 80% of the people in traffic court are black. I am white. But I find it very suspicious that there is such an imbalance of blacks in the courtroom. I sit there all day. About 3 in the afternoon, the trooper comes in. He is frustrated to see that I came to court. There is a hurricane on the way. He tells me I can either come back another day (because the court will not have time to hear my case) or I can plead guilty to something about driving with improper equipment. So I can either lose another vacation day, or plead guilty to something I am not guilty of but which won't raise my insurance rates like following too closely will. What kind of choice is that? The other blacks I had been talking with over the day say to keep fighting because it is so bogus. But I decide I would rather pay the $100 court costs and keep my vacation day. It was so depressing and difficult to plead guilty when I was not guilty. I stood up there and cried. I looked at the clerk of court in disbelief and could hardly get the words out of my mouth. I was raised to tell the truth and here I was being forced to lie under oath. As I am standing there mute, looking at them, and the clerk is saying quietly, "plead guilty". It was such a violation. The one positive, now I understand why the jury found OJ innocent. I was treated better than alot of those blacks that were in the court. One man had driven over 100 miles to appear in court, and they were going to make him come back another day. My coworker whose husband is a state trooper with the man who cited me said he is known among his coworkers as an asshole. I wrote a letter of complaint to the state government. Nothing was done. This occurred in Halifax County NC. There is no justice in that county.
Here's another. We filed for our tax refund from the state of NC. They never sent it to us. We kept asking for two years. They sent a letter saying we owe them more money. Our attorney says to them, just deduct that from the refund you owe them. NC won't do that. My husband says he and the attorney will handle it. He still believes you can get justice from the government. In the end, the state of NC confiscated the money from my paycheck - over $2000. They still had three years of refund check they had not sent us. So I told the attorney I wanted to know why they took my money. I sat there in his office refusing to leave. He called the state of NC Revenue. Spent one hour getting bounced from person to person back to the original person to another person. They kept saying they had mailed the check but they could see it hadn't been cashed, but then they had mailed it again and so the check was in the mail. You and I both know there are lots of liars who say the check is in the mail when it isn't. But at least they finally put the three years of refund checks in the mail, because we got them within two weeks. I'm still out the fines and interest they had confiscated from me (the over $2000 stated above) and the attorney said they were wrong in their assertion that we owed more money. No one has told me just what the problem was. Another example of the poor tax code - in that same phone call, we clarified that we should not have to pay an additional $25 because the attorney had not signed on a line that the form said did not need to be signed. The government worker thought it still should have been signed but admitted that it was not required to be signed. So we won't get fined $25 and then get fined interest and penalties and get money confiscated etc.
And then they wonder why the TEA party is around.
Don't ask me for money. I just wanted to tell you my story. We are all slaves working to support "massa" government.
You article amazes me. Of all the examples to use about our civil liberties and you choose to write about an Honduran immigrant who speaks no english. The police were called there because a concerned neighbor saw a man kicking in a door. Even the most prudent of liberals like yourself should see that the police were obligated to respond and investigate. The police, probably speaking english....god forbid, instructed the man several times to show himself. He didn't. So the police handled it. A police invasion? Not at all, they were called, they responded and had a duty to investigate. Not the fault of the police that the man doesn't speak english. Poor poor Mr. Sauceda. If you want my sympathy you wont find it for an Honduran immigrant. You make it out like the cops were monsters. Like they were just driving along and picked out some illegal immigrant to mess with. The best part of your article is when you say, "When the police did finally get Sauceda out of the bathroom, they pepper-sprayed him, shot him with a pepper ball gun and wrestled him to the ground." WOW. The police probably did it for no reason. I'm sure the Honduran immigrant who speaks no english and has the mind of a child was totally cooperative. I'm sure the police probably just got done watching porn in their cars and decided to kick the crap out of a brown person. Very compelling human story.
You and other Liberal minded folk often speak of revolution, not in the war sense. But that each individual is responsible to guard our freedoms and not let the government take that away from us. News flash........most people are sheep. They are scared. They want to wake up, drink their coffee. Put the kids on the bus, go to work and not be bothered. I, like you desire change. But our children are raised to be politically correct and passive. Do you think our Founding Father's were passive??
No, i don't think they were. They believed they could make a difference, they could stand with other Patriots and fight off oppression and tyranny. That passion is gone. Most don't have the intestinal fortitude to fight. I served my country in the Marine's and have a deep love for this country, as you do. Today I serve the Commonwealth as a State Trooper, and have been one for nine years. I have a wife and 3 children. I do it because hopefully i can make a difference and ensure a brighter future for all of our families. But sometimes when i read your paranoid articles about the police and how they misuse their power, it makes me mad. I am not blind to police corruption. But most of us are good honest people. Who love this country. But it is a difficult job. Especially when people don't trust us.
I look forward to hearing from you. I know this was a little sarcastic but obviously we have different point of views. I respect your views and agree that our government may not always be on our side. But the police are pawns in a bigger struggle to take this country back. I desire a revolution. One that will change our government. But I, like most other Americans, have jobs, families and have bills to pay. So i guess it will just have to wait.
I will continue to read your articles.
Sincerely,
Matthew
Mr. Whitehead,
I read today your excellent column in the Richmond Times-Dispatch. Very well said. I have added you to my short list of modern-day American Patriots. At this point my list includes You, Deroy Murdock, A. Barton Hinkle, and the entire Richmond Times-Dispatch Op/Ed staff.
"The similarities to pre-Revolutionary America are startling." What is even more startling to me is the complacency of a people that call themselves free. You are right. This persistent creep of tyranny has been so slow that it has lulled us to sleep. So many of us have ceded our free will -- to the common good-- for so long, we no longer recognize tyranny. This theft of liberty, and autonomy, is exactly the same type of violation that ignited the American Revolution. Yet, today, we shrug it off as if it were nothing.
"Every successful revolution puts on in time the robes of the tyrant it has deposed." Barbara Tuchman
I eagerly await your next column. Godspeed my friend.
Sincerely,
Kevin
p.s. Please, if i might indulge you a bit further and quote Orwell. "Sometimes it is the duty of intelligent men to restate the obvious." Duty calls you sir. I humbly suggest that you get on with it.
"The U.S. Supreme Court effectively decimated the Fourth Amendment in an 8-1 ruling in Kentucky v. King by giving police more leeway to smash down doors of homes or apartments without a warrant when in search of illegal drugs which they suspect might be destroyed if the Fourth Amendment requirement of a warrant were followed."
This ruling is very disturbing. What is the point of having a 4th Amendment? how could 8 justices rule in favor of unlawful entry? What can we do to reverse this? I've lived in communist countries in my work, and it is normal for police to smash down doors whenever they like - and now the U.S. is no different.
Kurt
"In a very real sense, we truly are back to where we started in those pre-Revolutionary War days, seemingly having learned next to nothing from those early days of tyranny at the hands of the British crown." (The Plight of Marco Sauceda and the Loss of Our Freedoms)
Exactly. And it's been like that for decades, in my estimation. This is a major, major problem for Americans, even if few recognize it.
Not much difference in freedom from London, London Ontario, and Loudoun County.
Doug
Dear John
For some time it has seemed obvious to me that the goal of government was to criminalize the population. Once we have all been individually maligned, impugned or discredited we will distrust each other and view one another through a cloud of suspicion. This will allow the government, through legislation and a dependent, subservient police force to peel away the most egregious objectors to totalitarianism in the name of public safety. Even if we know that it is wrong, the pall of guilt cast upon everyone (aided by a complicit media) will paralyze us into inaction. As that begins to happen, Mr. Sauceda was just a "disposable" test case, I am going to miss you.
Sincerely,
Paul
USA is an evil torturing nation of it's own innocent citizens
And that is the damn truth.... 100% truth.
I am talking about many thousands of innocent Americans who have been put on a totally Unconstitutional 24/7/365 Patriot Act Sanctioned Organized Stalking Program-- where they not only surveil you, they vandalize your property, character assassinate you everywhere you go and in your home and hotels they bath you with painful directed energy weapon assaults. I have found numerous cops involved in this... retired cops, marines, former military and they have used these same type electronic torture weapons on my 78 year old mother when I stayed at her home in San Diego for a time after getting driven out of my home in Nashua, NH by extremely painful directed energy weapons. So don't tell me this is a good country.... we have an evil Government and through decades past the government is no better than the people who have been in charge. In the United States today--- across the entire nation, Americans charged with no crime, under investigation for no crime are having National Security Letters issued against them and mostly for vigilante- vendetta reasons that has nothing to do with terrorism. This can be kicked off by people in the government who are using the program that was most likely developed to deal with sleeper cell terrorists as a vendetta tool for gripes they cowardly cannot handle as a man or woman so they have their adversary in some non terrorist related issue put on this fucking program from hell. There is a shitload of people going through this. I am only one. And I am not putting up with i,t I can guarantee you that.
Once the Posse Comitatus Act was suspended in 2007 this kicked into high gear by war mongering self righteous evil bastards who think they are protecting America from terrorists when in reality they are torturing and harassing innocent Americans.
A bogus SAR report and the an NSL is issued... you have no day in court and then you are put on this goddamn program. God Bless Stasi America.
This Government is torturing thousands of their citizens.... You tell me that is a good government. There are a lot of websites that explain what is happening with this. This one I think is the most accurate. The website is by married couple with 3 children and they too have had to move around the country to try to get some relief. Which really doesn't work.
Sheriff Bill Gore in San Diego said " his name does not come up in my computer", after he ran my dob, ss#. drivers license number. And yet in San Diego I was hit with both government sponsored Patriot Act organized stalking 24/7/365 and painful directed energy weapons torture for hundreds of night and watched my 77 year old mother as she would be crying from the pain saying, " why did you bring this to my house." Captain Peter Segal of the Nashua, NH police Dept said " you are not under investigation for any crime." And my story is one of many thousands.. and growing Americans being put on this harassment, provocation, torturing 24/7/365 program.
So you look into this you moral high road truth seekers-- And let's see what the hell you do with the SPIN on this --- and then you will find out if what I am saying is the fucking truth or just stay Government Propaganda Specialists.
http://www.torturedinamerica.org/
Jeff
Just read this Op/Ed from August 1, 2011. Thanks for speaking up. I am really upset at the destruction of our personal liberties. The strip searching at the airports is one example. The government using imminent domain to steal people's property is another. The city of Raleigh sends letters to elderly in their 80s threatening a lawsuit if they don't sign over their property for less than 50% of the value the city assessed the property for tax purposes. They always time these letters to arrive right before a long vacation like Thanksgiving or Christmas to torture the recipient to the max. The reason for the imminent domain - to build a 50 foot wide bike path down the center of their property.
How's this: I'm driving down the Interstate. A driver in a one ton pickup truck who had been going 85 mpg earlier up the road is now blocking the highway, cruising at 55 (70 mph speed limit) is the left lane, neck and neck with another car in the right lane. I pull between the two lanes to try to see around the two vehicles. A state trooper pulls me over. First words out of his mouth: "Where are you going in such a hurry." Duh, I wasn't going anywhere, was I? So I answer "Nowhere." Answer seems obvious to me. I was going nowhere fast before he pulled me and nowhere at all sitting on the side of the road. So he gives me a ticket for following too closely. I'm wondering, what the hell does that mean? Where is his subjective data supporting that? I am 55 and have not had a traffic ticket in 39 years. Over the following days, I ask friends, including a coworker whose husband works with this state trooper, just what does that ticket mean. They are all amazed and say the only time they have ever heard someone getting a ticket for driving too closely is when they are involved in an accident. So I go to court, on my birthday, using up one of my valuable vacation days. About 80% of the people in traffic court are black. I am white. But I find it very suspicious that there is such an imbalance of blacks in the courtroom. I sit there all day. About 3 in the afternoon, the trooper comes in. He is frustrated to see that I came to court. There is a hurricane on the way. He tells me I can either come back another day (because the court will not have time to hear my case) or I can plead guilty to something about driving with improper equipment. So I can either lose another vacation day, or plead guilty to something I am not guilty of but which won't raise my insurance rates like following too closely will. What kind of choice is that? The other blacks I had been talking with over the day say to keep fighting because it is so bogus. But I decide I would rather pay the $100 court costs and keep my vacation day. It was so depressing and difficult to plead guilty when I was not guilty. I stood up there and cried. I looked at the clerk of court in disbelief and could hardly get the words out of my mouth. I was raised to tell the truth and here I was being forced to lie under oath. As I am standing there mute, looking at them, and the clerk is saying quietly, "plead guilty". It was such a violation. The one positive, now I understand why the jury found OJ innocent. I was treated better than alot of those blacks that were in the court. One man had driven over 100 miles to appear in court, and they were going to make him come back another day. My coworker whose husband is a state trooper with the man who cited me said he is known among his coworkers as an asshole. I wrote a letter of complaint to the state government. Nothing was done. This occurred in Halifax County NC. There is no justice in that county.
Here's another. We filed for our tax refund from the state of NC. They never sent it to us. We kept asking for two years. They sent a letter saying we owe them more money. Our attorney says to them, just deduct that from the refund you owe them. NC won't do that. My husband says he and the attorney will handle it. He still believes you can get justice from the government. In the end, the state of NC confiscated the money from my paycheck - over $2000. They still had three years of refund check they had not sent us. So I told the attorney I wanted to know why they took my money. I sat there in his office refusing to leave. He called the state of NC Revenue. Spent one hour getting bounced from person to person back to the original person to another person. They kept saying they had mailed the check but they could see it hadn't been cashed, but then they had mailed it again and so the check was in the mail. You and I both know there are lots of liars who say the check is in the mail when it isn't. But at least they finally put the three years of refund checks in the mail, because we got them within two weeks. I'm still out the fines and interest they had confiscated from me (the over $2000 stated above) and the attorney said they were wrong in their assertion that we owed more money. No one has told me just what the problem was. Another example of the poor tax code - in that same phone call, we clarified that we should not have to pay an additional $25 because the attorney had not signed on a line that the form said did not need to be signed. The government worker thought it still should have been signed but admitted that it was not required to be signed. So we won't get fined $25 and then get fined interest and penalties and get money confiscated etc.
And then they wonder why the TEA party is around.
Don't ask me for money. I just wanted to tell you my story. We are all slaves working to support "massa" government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)