Ron Paul and death penalty
You might think that someone as conservative as Rep. Ron Paul, a Republican from Texas and a libertarian, would be in favor of the death penalty.
He is actually against it. Paul tries to make it sound like his opposition to the death penalty is recent, but he has actually opposed it since 1980.
He opposed capital punishment in his book "Liberty Defined," first published in 1980.
A true politician, he waffles a bit. He is opposed to the death penalty at the federal level, making no comment on the states.
Although Paul is pro-life, he criticizes pro-lifers on capital punishment, claiming to see inconsistency. Paul's reasoning on capital punishment offers nothing new except for rhetoric. He says that supporters believe in the "omnipotence of state military power," whatever that means.
He complains of "the government's ineptness" and says that rich people are usually acquitted. Basically, Paul recycles the same concerns as liberal opponents of capital punishment, such as wrongful convictions.
Unfortunately, he is not concerned with the murder rate in the U.S. or the crime rate in general.
It has apparently never occurred to him that problems in our judicial system could be fixed. It has apparently never occurred to Ron Paul that innocent people are put to death all the time, not by government, but by common criminals.
Since Ron Paul has gone on record opposing federal executions, how much of a problem are they?
George W. Bush was supposed to be a strong supporter of the death penalty, yet there were only three federal executions during the eight years he was president. In 1988, Congress authorized the execution of drug kingpins. Only one person has ever been executed under that law.
It looks like the number of executions is negligible, unlike the number of Americans being killed by criminals.
Dale L. Gillis
Boycott Leonard Pitts
So, Leonard Pitts wants us to boycott the whole state of Arizona? Unbelievable! Why? Because they still have the moral values with which they were brought up, and the fact they have the audacity to think differently than he and his liberal cronies who are in the process of destroying our country.
Judging by his writings, it seems as if Pitts never met a black man he didn't love, be it a murderer, drug addict, rapist or drop-out, nor a white man he didn't despise - since it is all the white man's fault.
Yet he calls all who disagree with him "bigots," a favorite term liberals use for the rest of us "sub-humans."
According to the dictionary, a bigot is one who shows intolerance for others. Therefore, it seems to me, Leonard Pitts fits the terms "bigot" and "racist" more aptly than those he ridicules.
Yes, rather than boycott the good people of the state of Arizona, it would be more fitting to boycott Leonard Pitts. I already have!