THE SUPREME COURT

THE 2008 VOTE FOR PRESIDENT IS THE VOTE FOR THE SUPREME COURT

BY LISA RICHARDS

July 8, 2008

Ever since Mitt Romney lost the primaries to John McCain conservatives have been outspokenly angry. It’s no secret McCain is not conservative, nor is he another Ronald Reagan. McCain is a moderate who has voted with liberal Democrats on too many laws angering conservatives and causing many to proclaim they will not vote John McCain.

Many say they will write in the name of the candidate they want on the ballot in protest of the GOP.

Is protesting the vote truly good for the nation our founders fought and died for in order that we might be free? What will happen to the Supreme Court if the most liberal politician in Washington D.C. wins the presidential election? He will appoint liberal justices to replace those ready to retire.

We the people must look at a few historical rulings to see how justices affect America.

1947 Everson V. Board of Education: New Jersey case ruling using “wall of separation” to stop state provisions to parochial schools. This led to no prayer in public school and every anti-religious precedent against public schools and public domain.

1965: Planned Parenthood challenges the court. Justice William O. Douglass uses Justice Harlan’s 1961 view in Poe V. Ullman case to make right to privacy justifiable in Griswold V. Connecticut. This led to Roe V. Wade.

The most controversial Supreme Court case in U.S. history is Roe v. Wade: the decision that made abortion legal in all 50 states began during the 1960’s when Georgia and California revised their state laws relating to abortion for what they called very special cases: the mother’s life must be in danger, the pregnancy was caused by rape, the unborn child will be born mentally retarded.

1971: The Supreme Court hears constitutional challenges on state’s rights concerning limitations on abortion. In 1971, Texas, along with 30 states, had laws in place stating abortion was a crime unless performed to save the mother’s life. This law had been in effect since the 1800’s.

Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmum, former General Council to the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, proclaims doctor’s hands must be untied to perform necessary abortions: “Georgia’s law… [on abortion is]… a fine statute [that] strikes a balance that is fair.”

Blackmum’s opinion struck down U.S. abortion laws making abortion a constitutionally legal right to individuals.

January of 1975: Blackmum wrote a statement never released to the public: “I fear what the headlines may be [regarding the Roe V. Wade decision].” He stated the courts had not “given women an absolute right to abortion,” and in no way did the court state the constitution “compels abortion on demand.”

Despite Blackmum’s declaring “abortion must be left to the medical judgment of the woman’s attending physician,” the ruling was just the opposite: The Supreme Court gave non-existent constitutional rights to privacy for abortion on demand if doctors are willing, if clinics are available, women will have full rights to abort up to six months of pregnancy without restriction under Supreme Court law.

Blackmum’s used the 14^th Amendment was to back up his abortion: The “states can not deprive any person of life, liberty, and property without due process of law.” Blackmum said property is the right to privacy and a justifiable reason for a woman to terminate her pregnancy.

To this day legal scholars can not find any explanation for Roe V. Wade’s broad ruling making abortion legal in all 50 states. Georgetown University Law Professor Mark V. Tushnet, former clerk to Thurgood Marshall, says the Roe V. Wade case was a way for courts to strike down Texas laws outlawing abortion: “All they [the Supreme Court] wanted was to get those laws off the books. They were not thinking long-term with an overall vision.”

Liberal justices use the bench for their own activist beliefs rather than interpreting the constitution the way the founders wrote the laws.

Eisenhower appointee Republican Governor Earl Warren was “an unabashed liberal” Eisenhower, like President Reagan who appointed the Republican Sandra Day O’Conner, said he regretted appointing to the court.

It was Warren who declared: “Our system of government requires that federal courts on occasion interpret the constitution in a manner at variance with the constitution given the document by another branch. The alleged conflict that such adjudication may cause cannot justify the courts avoiding their constitutional responsibility.”

Warren declared the Supreme Court has judicial supremacy. Nowhere in the Constitution did the founders give the Judicial Branch judicial supremacy. That would have created judicial monarchy.

According to Mark Silverstein and Benjamin Ginsberg, “The Warren Court further enhanced the significance of the judiciary in the political process by redefining both constitutional and discretionary limitations on the exercise of judicial power…in effect, the court simultaneously created new tools of judicial power and enhanced its capacity to forge linkages with important constituency groups willing to support new assertions of judicial power…”

LBJ appointment Thurgood Marshall, a justice more concerned with the lives in afternoon soap opera dramas declared at a speech in Hawaii: “I do not believe that the meaning of the constitution was forever “fixed” at the Philadelphia convention…It belongs to those who refused to acquiesce in outdated notions of “liberty,” “justice,” and “equality,” and who strive to better them.”

The 2008 rulings in favor of Guantanimo detainees receiving Habeas Corpus and child rapist not receiving the death penalty are decisions by liberal justices who not interpret the constitution as written; they used their robes as picket signs. The long term effect will not be good. Violent criminals gained freedom through the Warren court, now terrorists have rights to Habeas Corpus via today’s court.

Conservatives are angry at McCain’s record. They have every right to be; but Obama’s record of inexperience is worse. He’s been anti-Second Amendment until the recent ruling in favor of guns in D. C. Suddenly he supports the Amendment. Obama voted against the death penalty for Chicago gangs. Obama is pro-abortion, including partial birth abortion.

How long can that chapped finger look for wind before the courts gain judicial supremacy? How long would it take for President Obama to appoint liberal activists who overturn the Second Amendment? How long before a President Obama makes partial birth abortion legal using the Fourteenth Amendment? Obama would use the bench for his own personal gain rather than the protection for the nation.

This election is imperative: the Supreme Court’s constitutional foundation is at hand. Protesting at the polls could destroy the Supreme Court forever and undermine this nation with Obama for eight years just to spite the GOP.

The Gitmo and child rapist rulings are an omen: what will occur if Obama wins?

Voting for the protection of the Supreme Court is more important. America’s liberty is at stake; we must vote to protect the Supreme Court if America life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are to continue.

www.lisa-richards.com

JUSTICE KENNEDY SWINGS HIS GAVEL AGAINST CHILDREN

BY LISA RICHARDS

June 27, 2008

In a 5-4 decision that will spare the rapist and destroy the child, the highest court in the land struck down the Louisiana law that would allow child rapists to be executed. The four liberal justices plus swing vote Justice Anthony Kennedy declared the Louisiana law written by Republican State Legislator Pete Schneider to execute child rapists violates the Constitution’s Eight Amendment against “cruel and unusual punishments inflicted” on human beings.

In the suffocating brain of Justice Kennedy, cruel and unusual punishment inflicted upon victimized children is not restricted in Article VIII of the U.S. Constitution. Harming violent criminals however is.

The June 25, 2008 ruling began in 2003 with the conviction of 43 year-old Louisiana man Patrick Kennedy who was sentenced to death for the rape of his eight year-old stepdaughter. Kennedy is the second man in the state of Louisiana to rape a child who did not die from the brutality. Last December Richard Davis was convicted and sentenced to death for repeatedly raping a five-year-old Louisiana girl. The fact the two girls did not die from the hideous crimes is the extenuating circumstance halting executions of child rapists in America and a new sentence in the case: Kennedy vs. Louisiana 07-343.

For the past five years the court has been arguing over the decision on whether raping a child under the age of 12 actually violates the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution’s “cruel and unusual punishment” passage.

Five states provide the death penalty for rape including Texas which has “Jessica’s Law” allowing the death penalty or life in prison without parole for the second conviction of aggravated assault of a child under the age of 14. Justice Kennedy considers this law cruel and unusual punishment.

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, the judge whose vote decided Guantanimo Bay terrorists deserve civilian trials like American citizens, stated the rape of the eight year-old Louisiana child “was cruel, but capital punishment for a crime in which the victim was not killed is excessive.” Kennedy further declared: “The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child.”

Does that mean if the child is murdered after the violent rape the crime is relative and the death penalty is comparative?

Since the late 1950’s when Judge Earl Warren decided the imprisonment of violent criminals was cruel and unusual punishment, hundreds of thousands of violent offenders have been released to rape and murder without punishment of death. The legacy continues with Justice Kennedy whose swing verdict once again places Americans in harm’s way.

It’s been 44 years since the death sentence has been used to punish a criminal for rape without death being involved. The last execution for rape was May 8, 1964 when Ronald Wolfe was given the gas chamber. In 1977, the court ruled rapists who rape adult women can not be executed. 45 states have banned execution for rape; only five allow the rapist to face execution. Four states, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas allow the execution of child rapists, but only if the rapists have previous rape convictions.

In other words, the rapist gets one chance to commit the violent crime against a child, just don’t do it again or punishment will be inflicted.

Justice Samuel Alito stated: “The harm that is caused to the victims and to society at large by the worst child rapists is grave. It is the judgment of the Louisiana lawmakers and those in an increasing number of other states that these harms justify the death penalty.”

The Louisiana Supreme Court declared: “Short of first-degree murder, we can think of no other non-homicide crime more deserving of the death penalty.”

Kennedy disagreed stating that since many states do not allow the death penalty for child rape this shows America has a “national consensus against capital punishment for the crime of child rape.”

Kennedy says his decision was difficult to reach: he had to come to terms with “the years of long anguish that must be endured by the victim of child rape… [but] the death penalty should not be expanded to instances where the victim’s life was not taken.”

So far the five liberal justices can’t find any circumstance where violent criminals should ever face the death penalty unless slapping a dog on the snout is involved.

According to Justice Kennedy and the four liberal justices, there is the circumstance where a child under a certain age can not possibly understand what rape is or may be coached by a mother into saying they were raped by fathers in a divorce case. That may happen in few divorce cases, but it’s not grounds for freeing any rapist, whoever it may be.

Although the Eighth Amendment does not have a specific clause set up to punish rapists, the Constitution doesn’t say rapists have rights to commit violent crimes. “Cruel and unusual punishment” means when executing don’t torture criminals to death. Yet one has to ask: which is crueler, the rape of a child or the injection of a serum that puts the criminal to sleep gently and painlessly? Cruel and unusual is violence; rape is violent; executed criminals are not subjected to the merciless violence, they are treated humanely, which is more than can be said for how rapists treat their victims.

Representative Schneider angrily asked: “When are you [the Supreme Court] going to have the courage to stand up for what’s right for all of the people; but especially the children under 12 that have been brutally raped by monsters?”

After last weeks court ruling in favor of Guantanimo Bay detainees being granted civilian court trials and this ruling in defense of rapists, one is left to believe the Constitution no longer protects Americans unless one is a criminal.

This ruling has sealed the fate of Americans: we are victims of a liberal Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution to suit their activist ideology that protects and defends the rights of criminals.

This presidential election is the most important in history. The most important issue facing Americans with the next administration is electing a president who will appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court. If America elects Obama we will continue down the Kennedy road with more liberal allies as we lose our Constitutional rights to criminals.

www.lisa-richards.com

FROM THE HALLS OF MONTEZUMA TO THE SHORES OF AMERICA

BY LISA RICHARDS

JUNE 17, 2007

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United states; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, or liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor dent to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Article XIV, Section 1. The Constitution of the United States

The above Constitutional Amendment is so easy to understand, a five year-old could interpret it to the five radical robed rogues on the Supreme Court bench who purposely misinterpreted the amendment to pacify non-citizen terrorist detained in Guantanimo Bay, Cuba.

As of June 19, 2008, the written ratified and codified law that has held strong for over 200 years no longer stands. The United States Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, bound to protect the Constitution of the United States and interpret it as it is so clearly written, and not interpret any article to one’s own personal beliefs, has been abolished.

No longer do the citizens of the United States have protection from terrorists hell-bent on murder.

One has to wonder which court handed down this ruling: the United States Supreme Court or the European Court of Justice, better known as the Eurocratic Court of Socialist Suckers and Stool Pigeons.

The 270 Gitmo Bay terrorists, whom liberal Washington whiners love to refer to as “detainees,” will now have the right to leap frog over military tribunals with their liberal-minded U.S. attorneys and enter U.S. Federal Courts in the Washington D.C. area like any American citizen accused of civilian crimes, receiving all rights to Habeas Corpus. The 270 terrorists will be allowed to call their own witnesses while demanding the U.S. government prove evidence of terrorist acts committed by the murderers of mankind.

The defense lawyers for the 270 terrorists claim the ruling will allow the doors to open to court challenges. Under the laws of the Constitution this decision is not only false but dangerous. The Constitution is written to protect American citizens, not put American lives in jeopardy by giving rights to terrorists from other countries.

The ruling is well received by liberals in Washington and around the U.S. who feel no violent criminal should be punished for crimes they were forced to commit due to the oppressive American government regime and constitutional freedoms laid out by a bunch of white men foolishly believing evil should be subdued and destroyed and life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness belongs to law abiding citizens. That’s what happens when a country accepts the raving lunacies of Christians: we get law and order unfair to criminals.

Justice Antonin Scalia warned that “America is at war with radical Islamists, [and this Supreme Court ruling] will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed. The Nation will live to regret what the court has done today.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy stated in defense of the ruling: “The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.” Unfortunately the Constitution’s laws have been absconded with in an extraordinary way that no longer survives to protect American citizens.

President Bush who said he will abide by the ruling made known his disappointment with the verdict that places Americans in jeopardy: “It was a deeply divided court, and I strongly agree with those who dissented.”

The ruling handed down defends cases brought before the court by 37 Guantanimo Bay foreign terrorists captured on foreign soil plotting against the U.S. while killing U.S. service men overseas. The 37 Islamic murderers, along with their American liberal lawyers, claim innocence, demanding rights to challenge the U.S. in federal courts to the writ of habeas corpus—the constitutional right stating U.S. citizens held prisoner have rights to protest their imprisonment before an independent judge.

These Muslim monsters believe they’ve done no wrong because their Koran dictates they “smite the heads of the unbelievers.” They are called to jihad against all non-Muslims and their liberal lawyers fully agree they should be free to live and kill as they please.

The 270 prisoners are non-U.S. citizens with links to al Qaeda. They are not being held on U.S. soil; Gitmo is Cuba, a wise choice of location by the Bush Administration impeding the federal court any access to terrorists captured after 9/11. Congress however has looked upon the president’s decision as cruel and unusual punishment, thus challenging Bush since 2001 on his pronouncement to confine prisoners in Cuba versus Leavenworth where they would receive the same rights of U.S. citizens.

One of those men is Kalid Sheik Mohammad, henchman to Osama bin Laden who helped plot the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States. He now has been granted the same rights as American citizens he wants dead.

Poor little monsters; President took stopped their violent crimes against humanity by locking them up on a tropical sunny island where the U.S. military feeds them five start meals according to their Koranical diet, allows them prayer time, Koran reading, exercise, rest and relaxation while the military does all the hard work of keeping the place in tip top shape.

Two detainees demanding hearings against President Bush and the United States are Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama bin Laden’s personal driver, and Omar Khadr, a Canadian Islamic terrorist charged with killing a U.S. Special Forces soldier in Afghanistan. Despite their crimes, the three murderers above demand civilian court trials and immediate release to continue their terror.

Article XIV clearly states one must be a United States citizen in order to receive civilian court trials on U.S. soil. Nowhere in Article XIV does it state foreigners and enemy combatants held for crimes against the United States are allowed privileges or immunity. Nor does the article state foreign terrorists are allowed to enter U.S. courts receiving due process of the law.

American born terrorist Timothy McVeigh had all those rights under Article XIV to face judgment in a U.S. court; he was a citizen. The Guantanimo Bay terrorists are foreign born, they are Islamic terrorists whose goal was to attack the U.S. and murder its people; they have no rights to the federal court justice system. Enemy combatants must face military tribunal. Yet five justices have decided imprisonment for the past seven years has been inhuman torture despite the fact the terrorists live and eat better than those serving in the U.S. Military.

The Supreme Court ruling says military tribunals set up under the constitution for enemy combatants during wartime no longer stands as law. Those who commit war crimes against humanity and detained by the U.S. military now have all rights to challenge laws that have protected the United States for well over 200 years.

If tried and set free by liberal activist judges who feel murders have more rights than innocent citizens, Islamo-fascist terrorists will be free to go back to the Middle East and plot their foiled attempts once more and possibly succeed in making 9/11 look like a picnic.

www.lisa-richards.com

IT’S ALL JUST RELATIVELY NIETZSCHE

BY LISA RICHARDS

July 28, 2007

The greatest danger to the western world is the perspective of relativism; it’s all just relative. The term has nothing to do with family relations; relativism translated simply means everyone and everything is meaningless, therefore there is no right or wrong, no accountability and no one to be held accountable to. That makes things relatively nice for criminals; they can rob rape and murder and never be responsible to higher authority or God, because God is relative; he does not exist unless the person chooses to believe God exists.

Out of relativism comes the entire belief system of liberalism.

Criminal action is nothing new, neither is the idea that one can get away with whatever one wants, but relativism was fostered to greatness in the nineteenth century by a German philosopher whose writings are said to be the main inspirations behind Hitler’s Nazism; Friedrich Nietzsche, a man who completely rejected the belief of God, embracing his ideas that “what we call truth is a mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphimisms,” and what we believe to be “truth” is nothing more than an illusion we create in our mind to serve the purpose of our imagined belief that evil exists in the world and God can over come evil.

To Friedrich Nietzsche all human beings were weak with nothing more than the desire to “will the power” over other people. Nietzsche was a relativist and a man Freud admired. Freud was a Nietzsche proto-type, which explains everything on that end. Nietzsche denied all absolute truths, including God; he claimed knowledge was nothing more than “useful fiction” created by the human mind to suit human needs; people believe whatever they want to believe, and what ever people see, people can perceive it the way they want. Nietzsche claimed God was nothing more than some imagined “idol” making human beings victims of “wishful thinking.” The doctrinal belief in God and following a religion based on him was completely unreasonable to Nietzsche who claimed God is nothing more than “the effect of what is believed true is mistaken for truth,” and believing in such a figment of the imagination is a psychological error that needed reevaluation for its value. In fact, Friedrich Nietzsche was the man who stated “God is dead,” thus creating generations of non-believers who believe in relativism.

Nietzsche declared: “God is dead,” and everything is relative; people are nothing but an illusion we invent. Friedrich Nietzsche’s philosophy is the concept behind relativism.

St. Thomas of Aquinas wrote: “And so it is evident that as to the general principles of reason, whether speculative or practical, there is a single standard of truth and right for everyone which is known by everyone. However when it comes to the specific conclusions of the speculative reason, the truth is the same for everyone but everyone does not equally know it.”

According to the relativist Nietzsche, Aquinas was essentially crazy; it is completely impossible for any human being to “observe outside” such a phenomenon as God, life, creation, etc.; God is simply relative psychology, and whatever we do is simply fine if it is what makes each individual happy.

Atheist enthusiast and Godless Jew Sigmund Freud agreed 100 percent with the anti-Semite German Nietzsche, claiming “the truth is the same for everyone,” and the belief in God is dangerous to the whole of mankind; God is nothing more than an “illusion” created in the mind of a child seeking a parent figure and a way to make good on all the bad things one does in life.

I’m surprised Hitler didn’t erect a statue in honor of the Godless, Atheist Jew loved by the anti-Semite who fostered Hitler’s Nazism.

Again, it’s all relative; do unto others as you wish, because they’re nothing but matter and don’t matter one, damn bit. Relativism is the concept that has been motivating violent criminals in America to commit the most heinous crimes, knowing all along they can commit these crimes, be imprisoned a short time, be paroled, recommit their crimes and be declared mentally insane because they had no understanding of their relative actions.

Thus we come to the latest relative act of nothingness.

On July 23, 2007, two 20-times convicted criminals broke into a Cheshire, Connecticut home and proceeded to torture, rape and murder an innocent family Manson-style. Why, because they could; because the actions were relative; because human beings are nothing more than matter and God does not exist to atone to on judgment day.

At 3 A.m., Joshua Komisarjevsky and Steven Hayes broke into the home of Dr. Petit and his family while the family slept. Waking Dr. and Mrs. Petit, the two men beat Dr. Petit with a baseball bat, tied him up and threw him down his basement steps; then the two men spent the night repeatedly raping Jennifer Hawke-Petit and her two daughters Michaela 17 and Hayley 11. In the morning on July 24, 2007, one man forced Jennifer to drive to the bank to withdraw $15,000 dollars, and then forced Jennifer to drive to a gas station for a container of gasoline.

Jennifer alerted a bank teller to the violence taking place and the teller phoned police. But it was too late. By the time police arrived, the Petit house was in flames, Dr. Petit was laying on his front lawn after managing to crawl out of the basement, Jennifer was found strangled inside the burning house, and her daughters were found tied to their beds where they died from smoke inhalation. The two men were caught as they tried to rush a police barricade.

The two monstrous freaks have been arraigned on charges of assault, sexual assault, burglary, kidnapping, robbery, larceny, and risk of injury to children, and are being held on 30 million dollars bail.

Police say the men could face the death penalty, but prosecutor Michael Dearington is not sure if that is the avenue he wishes to pursue even though “it’s public consensus to wish to fry these guys.”

I know a good avenue Mr. Dearington, the street the two non-human specimens committed their vile acts—the Petit’s street. Let the neighbors and relatives of the family have the criminals for one hour.

As for the death penalty, there will be many who decry this form of punishment as inhumane treatment which serves only to lower ourselves to the level of the criminal. I’m perfectly happy with lowering the switch on the electric chair. Death penalty opponents insist killing murderers does not prevent violent crime. If that’s true, why was there less crime in the 1950’s before liberal activist Supreme Court Judge Earle Warren released tens of thousands of violent criminals in America who went on heinous murder sprees which continue today?

Could God have been on to something when he said “Thou shalt not murder” because it’s wrong, and “an eye for an eye” must be dispensed to those who break laws, because justice must be enacted to “give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.”

The Connecticut Parole Board claims the Petit murder case is so shocking because it simply does not fit the mode of the two criminals who viciously murdered. The two men never raped and murdered before, according to the state of Connecticut, so why would repeated offenders suddenly decide to go on a killing spree.

Give me a freaking break; you don’t know why criminals suddenly decide to kill? Because they’re criminals and have no belief of right and wrong; they believe they can kill because life is worthless and human beings are nothing more than innate objects to use for obliging one’s means. And for the record, if someone has been arrested and imprisoned 20 times, the odds are that someone is going to up the ante the next committed crime.

The two non-human pieces of crap are Nietzsche proto-types. Everything those two men did to an innocent family was simply relative; it never actually happened unless people wish to perceive things as true. That is what Friedrich Nietzsche claimed, and that is why the world’s justice systems are so liberal—no one is doing wrong; wrong is in the eyes of the beholder; we’re all equal and must treat criminals as equal, humane beings deserving of respect we give all other; what you call deviance is wrong only to you unless of course you become the victim, then you’ll scream like a banshee for justice.

This too is how the Connecticut Parole Board views crime—its relative, just let the bastards go; they did their time; all people are fixable.

Connecticut’s justice system truly believed two freaks of Satan were rehabilitated because they spent the past year in a half-way house. How sweet. They reported to their parole officer weekly, they were nice to the parole officer, they bathed daily, combed their hair, brushed their teeth, flossed, wore deodorant, shaved, they even used hair product; they pet the neighbor’s kitty cat and waved to the Postman daily; they couldn’t possibly rape and murder horror movie-style.

If our justice system does not throw Nietzsche sociology and psychology down the toilet and replace it with God Almighty and his Ten Commandments, the violence perpetuating throughout America will continue on a downward spiral out of rejection of God and the indoctrinated religion of relativism. Without the belief and knowledge there truly is a God who holds us all accountable for right and wrong, humans will continue to look at others as illusions toward which we can do unto others as we so please.

How relatively Nietzsche.

www.lisa-richards.com

E-mail contact: www.lisa-richards@lisa-richards.com

WHY SO MANY AMERICAN WOMEN AND CHILDREN ARE KIDNAPPED AND MURDERED

BY LISA RICHARDS

July 16, 2007

Week after week, month after month, and year after year, women and children in the United States go missing only to be found murdered, and people ask why are these crimes so prevalent now when they weren’t thirty years ago.

This is not a piece that will take much explanation to the many kidnappings and murders listed below. It will however take people to realize these crimes will become viler and continue at higher rates until people realize capitol punishment deters murder and those committing violent crimes must be executed.

There was a time in America when police officers were allowed to do their duty when arresting criminals; that ended in the 1960’s when an illegal immigrant from Mexico named Ernesto Miranda raped and murdered a young girl in Arizona.

Miranda, for whom the infamous and pro-criminal Miranda Rights is named for, confessed to the brutal rape and murder of a mentally disabled teenager. Miranda was questioned and jailed until his attorney said Miranda had not been made aware of his constitutional rights he technically had no right to since he was a non-citizen and illegal. The rest is history. Miranda got off, the cops who did their job accurately were hog-tied, and the judge let Miranda go. Thankfully, Miranda received justice by way of a bar-room brawl in which Miranda was killed.

The downside to the story was an Amendment for criminals and a special declaration every police officer must read to every thug cops can’t interrogate without the thug being given full rights to shut up and never reveal what happened to their innocent victim. Thanks to Ernesto Miranda, every criminal in America knows if they do the crime, they’ll barely do time; if they kill, they can live comfortably for 20 years on death row where most murderers die comfortably of old age.

So why do women and children become victims of violent criminals; because the law and courts protect criminals.

In the early 1980’s a string of serial murders took place in Washington. The victims, women and teenage girls, were all found on the banks of the Green River, giving the murder case the name “Green River Murders.”

Serial Killer Gary Ridgeway murdered 51 women, confessing to only four before 2003 when Ridgeway confessed in court, on a plea bargain to drop the death penalty charge, to murdering 48 out of the 51 women “because I thought I could kill as many prostitutes as I wanted.” Gary Ridgeway gets to live because he confessed; 51 innocent women were put to death by his own hands because he accused all of being prostitutes deserving murder.

There are more on America’s list of jack the Ripper’s. Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gasey and Tookie Williams are all violent criminals who got away with murder despite being put to death, because the courts defend criminals. Charles Manson, who was sentenced to death nearly 40 years ago, gets to live because California’s laws changed and Manson and his psycho cohorts are living out their lives comfortably; Sharon Tate and the La Bianca’s received Jack the Ripper-style murders.

If you don’t believe in capitol punishment for violent criminals, read a little further; this could be your child.

In 1979, eight year-old Cary-Anne Medlin was forced into Robert Glen’s Coe’s car where he raped and murdered Medlin. Coe was later executed. He is one of the few murderers in the U.S. who actually receive just punishment.

Not long after Medlin, John Walsh’s son was kidnapped and murdered in similar fashion.

In 1993, Polly Klass was forcibly taken in front of a group of young girls at a slumber party. Polly was found raped and murdered.

In 1996, nine year-old Amber Hagerman of Arlington, Texas was kidnapped and murdered. Her name would become a legacy for the national highway, radio and TV alert for kidnappings.

In 1998, seven year-old Amanda Brown was kidnapped and murdered by convicted child molester Willie Cain Jr. Cain had spent the night with the Browns and while Mrs. Brown slept, Cain abducted her daughter.

On February 1, 2002, Danielle Van Dam was kidnapped from her parent’s home by next door neighbor David Westfield. A week later Danielle’s charred remains were found near a highway; blood DNA was found inside Westfield’s camper where he raped, tortured and murdered the girl.

On May 20, 2002, Christina Long of Danbury, Connecticut met a “Boy” in a chat room. She went to the mall to meet the alleged teen and was met by 25 year-old Saul Dos Reis who kidnapped and murdered Christina. Reis confessed and led the cops to Christina’s body.

On July 15, 2002, five year-old Samantha Runion was forced, kicking and screaming, into a car by Alejandro Avila who raped and murdered the five year-old. Avila is a twice convicted child molester who got off. Samantha got torture and death.

On August 4, 2002, 10 year-old sisters Jessica and Holly Wells vanished. A school caretaker was accused of murdering of the two young girls.

On February 1, 2004, the kidnapping of 11 year-old Carlie Brucia of Sarasota, Florida was captured on video. Video shows Joseph Smith forcibly dragging Carlie away. Smith raped and murdered Carlie then pled not guilty.

February of 2005, Nine year-old Jessica Lunsford of Homosassa, Florida was kidnapped from her bedroom by door neighbor John Couhey who snuck into the family home while the Lunsford family slept. Couhey said he put his hand over Jessica’s mouth and demanded: “You’re coming with me.” Couhey would later be seen on live TV telling the court; “I sexually assaulted her. I’m a sick person…I buried her alive. It’s stupid, but she suffered…”

John Couhey, a 23-times sex offender admitted to raping and burying the child alive under his porch steps. Autopsy report state Jessica died of suffocation from being buried alive. Jessica was alive, smothering to death for three days under Couhey’s front porch while police attempted to question Couhey’s relatives living in the house. Yards from where Jessica struggled as she lay dying, her grieving father stood in front of news cameras begging the kidnapper to release his baby.

Couhey now pleads not guilty because police statements reveal Couhey did not have a lawyer present for the 50 hour questioning in which he confessed to torturing a human to death. Couhey’s lawyers now want the entire case thrown out of court, but Couhey has been charged with capitol murder, 24 burglaries, carrying a concealed weapon, fondling a child under 16, and 23 other child molestations.

Still, the murderer has more rights than the child he raped, tortured, buried alive and left smothering to death.

Thanks to Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly hounding the judge and State of Florida via his TV show, a bill named for little Jessica, “Jessica’s Law,” was passed.