• The Iranian Presidents Mind VS Civilized Man…”never the ‘twain shall meet”

    The Supreme Court has let stand a death penalty against a Virginia murderess who paid two men to kill her husband and stepchild for insurance money. Obviously, a just sentence.

    The judicial system in Iran has been trying to have a woman stoned to death for having sex. The actual charge is adultery, but the root is, a woman had sex without a mans permission.

    The Iranian president has compared the two sentences, asking where is the outrage against America, equal to the outrage against his country’s treatment of the adulterer? He apparently see some moral equivalency.

    I, of course do not.

    We have had proof after proof of muslims determination to destroy the civilized word, and their intention to strangle freedom, wherever it exists, with Sharia law.

    His comparison is just more proof.

    More proof that the muslim does not have the capacity of understanding, intellect, or values to live in a civilized world. The muslims are savages, ready to stone to death a woman for her unauthorized sexual gratification, using her body as she sees fit, not her owner, brother or group of men. (Something no muslim has the courage to do, is recognize a woman as a person, not a piece of property).
    That is not a legitimate death penalty, that is a revenge killing.
    Our celebration of one of our most glorious laws is just that, a celebration.
    Progressive panderers to judicial anarchy and bleeding heart liberals have taken something beautiful and forced it into the darkness of night. We have allowed European Human Rights Panels and UN organizations to demonize our death penalty, to try and make us feel dirty for ending a human life.
    Our death penalty is the result of our community coming together after particularly heinous acts have been committed, mostly ending in the death of innocent, Liberty-Loving American Citizens.
    We make sure the facts are collected, and, as a society, investigate the circumstances surrounding the lose of our most valuable asset, the most valuable asset in the world, a free, independent person.

    When society is satisfied that a particular person is responsible for this atrocity, this destruction of freedom, this blow against liberty, we bring charges and prove the case “beyond a reasonable doubt”, under the most open trial system in the world.
    Upon conviction, after allowing appeals in case of an oversight, we make plans to rid our community of the persons who dared strike a free person down, and not allow them or their families the fruits of their heritage: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    Originally, we had public executions, out in the open. It was a family gathering to teach the celebration of the cleansing of a free society of those who have given up their rights to live by denying the same to others.

    We do this not out of revenge.
    We do this as a warning to the world.
    It is a statement to the world that WE ARE FREE PEOPLE. We will not be killed easily, without notice. When our personal rights to self defense fail, and we are struck down, we do not die. Our society rises on our behalf, in our name, to chase down and demand justice of the killers.
    The president of Iran finds a moral comparison between the two? We are supposed to give weight to ideas, on any matter, that stem from a mind so damaged as that?


    Ron Reale