Death Penalty for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev

Well folks, he's been caught. Tonight brought an end, and the beginning of a sense of closure for Americans, to the Boston Marathon terrorist attack. One suspect, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, died as the result of a shootout over night and police took Dzhokhar Tsarnaev alive from a boat parked in Watertown, Mass. backyard just hours ago on Friday night. And now that he's been caught, it is time to expedite his trip to Hell by imposing the death penalty in a federal trial. Dzhokhar and his older brother Tamerlan are not "criminals" but rather enemy combatants and deserve to be treated as such.

Now, as several of you know from my previous posts I am a Catholic and pro-life. But I have always been for capital punishment, especially in cases like this. The death penalty needs to always be there as a threat for crimes against humanity such as this. Without it, all criminals (or enemy combatants in this case) face is life in prison with 3 meals each day, free healthcare, etc. Life in prison will not be enough to make up for the atrocities committed this week in Boston.

Three people were killed, including an 8 year old boy, somewhere around another 30 lost a limb or limbs, and in total over 180 were injured in the initial blasts on Monday. The suspects intentionally  placed that bomb in close proximity to Martin Richard with the knowledge that it would probably kill him. They showed absolutely no mercy or compassion for him or any of the other blast victims. And then during the manhunt Thursday night and early Friday morning they shot and killed police officer Sean Collier from MIT and another police officer.

What about these actions warrants that Dzhokhar be kept alive? What part shows that he deserves any compassion from us? If it weren't for the chance that he may have valuable answers and information about terror plots against the United States, I would've preferred he were shot dead in that boat. Dzhokhar does not deserve to be kept alive for the next 60 or more years on the taxpayers' dime. What good would that do anyone? Why should his actions be rewarded with life in prison?

He should be interrogated about why and how his brother carried out this attack, tortured for any additional information about terror threats that he may have, and then be put to death. It is as simple as that. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has no respect for the sanctity of human life, so why should we respect his life?

Jimmy Williams

How much could a tweet cost you? At the University of Maryland, try $500.

Monday, April 15th kicked off the start of campaign season for SGA elections here at the University of Maryland. This year the incumbent Go Party and the challenging Time Party. A note that the party names are meaningless beyond just grouping people together. They usually change every year.

As The Diamondback reported on Tuesday, April 16th, if the Time Party is going to unseat the Go Party this year, it will have to do so with severely limited resources. That's because earlier this month the Time Party was fined $500 because one of its representatives turned to Twitter to accuse the current SGA of illegally promoting the incumbent president before campaigning officially kicked off. That fine represents a whopping 25 percent of the Time Party's original $2,000 operating budget. Both parties start off with the same amount of money to spend.

This fine is an absolute travesty on multiple fronts. First, let's look at the chain of events leading up to the fine. The SGA allegedly began campaigning illegally for a Go Party candidate. So the Time Party turned to Twitter to call them on it, presumably to also raise awareness of the issue with the public. And instead of investigating the incident (no investigation is mentioned), the Time Party is fined $500 by the SGA Elections Board? What for? The Time Party committed no wrong.

And now to address the shear amount of the fine. The SGA Elections Board has taken away 25 percent of the Time Party's campaign money. How can the party be expected to mount a serious challenge to the incumbents with that big of a disadvantage? If the board absolutely had to punish the Time Party for bringing potentially illegal campaign practices into the public eye, which there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with, why couldn't the fine be more reasonable? A $50 or $100 fine would have sent a message without crippling the Time Party's ability to wage an effective campaign.

The worst thing about all this is that there doesn't appear to be any precedence or rule regulating the action the Time Party took. A commenter on The Diamondback's story researched election rules and found that the only time a $500 fine is permitted is for campaigning early. Does that mean the elections board is somehow classifying the Time Party tweet as early campaigning??? Last time I checked, a tweet trying to raise awareness of a potential violation by another party is not early campaigning in any fashion. If anyone should be at risk of being fined, it's the Go Party!

So if the Time Party didn't break any rules, and it did not, why the massively debilitating  fine? Simple, the Go Party runs the SGA right now and the elections board is surely sympathetic to the party and what it stand for. The elections board then found this tweet and stretched into a gray area of its election rules to cripple the opposition. I realize I might look like a conspiracy theorist to some but honestly think about it for a second and you will realize it makes a heck of a lot of sense. This story, which got almost no coverage on campus beyond a poorly written Diamondback article, is corruption at its finest.

Jimmy Williams

The Failed Gun Bill Filibuster is Okay

A lot of Conservatives and Second Amendment defenders are up in arms today because several Republican senators voted today to advance new gun legislation to the floor of the senate for debate. Sixteen Republicans, led by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.), joined with Harry Reid and senate Democrats to move the bill to the floor by a 68-31 vote. Two Democrats voted against bringing the bill to the floor. This vote doomed, for now at least, the filibuster effort led by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah).

But let's take a step back and think about this for a second. We have congressional midterms in about 18 months. There are several Democratic senators retiring and there are also a few Democratic senators in red states, such as Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska), who will be up for reelection. Begich only won his seat in 2008 by one percentage point.

Bringing this bill to a floor debate is going to force these red state Democrats into a really difficult position. Do they vote to pass the bill as is and support their president, and by doing so take massive political hits back home? Or do they break against the president in an effort to shore up tight election prospects next year? If this bill had never come to the floor, these senators would never have to take a stand on the bill. A GOP filibuster would have actually hurt GOP election chances in 2014.

And the bill is already in trouble. The signs of defection are already there. According to the Fox News article linked above, both Begich and Pryor voted with Republicans to block floor debate. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W. Va.) is co-sponsoring an amendment to the bill along with Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) which would scale back the call for universal background checks. How the senators up for reelection vote on this amendment will also be closely followed.

Landrieu could be in trouble herself. Although she is known as a very conservative Democrat and her handling of Katrina boosted her popularity, her vote to move this legislation to the floor today won't be taken lightly back home. I've already talked to family in Louisiana who assure me they're dead set against her vote today. And if she ultimately votes in favor of the legislation, the three-term senator could find herself in a tight race after coasting to a 52-46 win in 2008. All of these senators will be interesting to watch for sure in the coming weeks.

Jimmy Williams

Why the AP Shouldn’t Have Done Away with “Illegal Immigrant”

The Associated Press made a decision at the start of this month to stop using the phrase “illegal immigrant” in articles. Also gone will be “illegal alien,” “an illegal,” “illegals,” and “undocumented” except in direct quotations. Apparently the AP now considers these phrases offensive to immigrants who have come to this country unlawfully. No exact change was put in place but according to the AP’s blog, one of the acceptable variations appears to be, “living in or entering a country without legal permission.”
 

This decision by the AP to dump the phrase “illegal immigrant” and related phrases is part of a broader push by liberals over the last year or so to remove the phrase from all speech nationwide. For example, this university started the “Inclusive Language Campaign” in the fall in an attempt to get students to realize “the words [they] use may have an impact on others.” One of the phrases the campaign is trying to eliminate is, “Those illegal aliens.” Instead, the campaign advocates for the use of “undocumented immigrant” or, by far the most sickening option, “undocumented citizen.”

             

The decision by the AP and the advocacy of the Inclusive Language Campaign here on campus couldn’t be any more misguided. The word “illegal” means “unlawful” and, according to dictionary.com, “alien” in this context means “a resident born in or belonging to another country who has not acquired citizenship by naturalization (distinguished from citizen).” Therefore, using the phrases “illegal immigrant” and “illegal alien” to describe someone who is in the United States, or any country for that matter, unlawfully is a completely truthful and accurate description. No one is using these phrases to be offensive. People who feel offended by them are looking to be offended.

             

Illegal aliens are certainly not “undocumented citizens” of the U.S., either. The word “citizen” is used to describe someone who is not only in this country legally but who has also sworn and owes allegiance to the United States and the Constitution. Illegal aliens are not citizens. They couldn’t be any further from it.

             

Another problem the AP has with banning all these phrases is that they have nothing short and concise to replace them. AP Style has always preached that short and concise is the best way to describe something. By getting rid of these phrases, the AP is replacing one and two word phrases with a phrase that is nine words in length. Telling journalists they no longer have to be concise when talking about illegal aliens is a direct contradiction of everything journalists have been taught for years.

Marylanders Lose Even More Personal Freedom

Despite the protests of thousands of gun rights supports and constituents who packed Annapolis daily, despite the pro-Second Amendment testimony in the state house that dragged on for hours into the night, ending at 4 a.m. one night, and despite the fact that supporters of the bill have admitted that S.B. 281 will not reduce crime, the Maryland General Assembly on Thursday, April 4^th voted to unconstitutionally restrict our right to bear arms anyway.

This gun-grabbing legislation, euphemistically titled “The Firearms Safety Act of 2013,” takes massive steps to make handgun ownership nearly impossible and practically criminalizes owning a handgun or semiautomatic firearm while doing nothing to deter or punish criminals. Del. Doyle Niemann (D-Prince George’s) has even gone on record saying the legislation “is not a solution to violent crime, murder or gun violence.” Well if it’s not any of those things, then what was the purpose of passing this bill?! I was under the impression that your purpose was to prevent things like the Newtown Shooting, which was violent crime, murder and gun violence all-in-one, from happening again. If your “Firearms Safety Act” won’t stop any of those things and, by simple logic, won’t prevent another Newtown, then what the hell does this legislation do?!

I’ll tell you what this legislation does. Del. Niemann also called this bill “a good first step.” What he and his crony colleagues mean by that is that it’s a good first step to flying in the face of the Constitution and taking all guns away from all law-abiding citizens. According to University of Maryland Rifle and Pistol Club President Ken Lan, the law as it is written is already a de facto ban on handguns because the state simply does not have enough state police certified handgun instructors or range facilities to go around. The state police, despite the illegality of the move, could also just indefinitely delay handgun background checks. Lan says he knows some people who have been waiting over 45 days for a handgun despite the waiting period being just 7 days.

The law is also a clear violation of both the Constitution and a Supreme Court ruling which makes it illegal for government to require licensing, fees, etc. to exercise a constitutional right. This law requires prospective handgun owners to undergo a criminal-style fingerprinting (much like sex offenders) and to pay all fees involved in that, which are presently about $34.50. Handgun owners must additionally pay an application fee for their handgun licenses and an additional fee every time they seek to renew their license, which would occur every 10 years. And if that weren’t enough, anyone who owns a “copycat weapon” when this law goes into effect in October, has to register that weapon with the state police and pay a penalty of $290 to keep it, a clear violation of both privacy and Second Amendment rights.

So what now? The most obvious reaction might be to start collecting petition signatures in order to get the law to a referendum vote, which Del. Pat McDonough (R-Baltimore and Harford) had vowed to do. But that isn’t the best idea. The bill of rights is something that isn’t subject to the ballot, so if we take this to a referendum, we’d be saying the law isn’t a violation of our basic constitutional rights. The best thing we can do right now is to take this law straight to the courts and fight it out there. Judges have shown favor to gun rights in Maryland recently and with the clear unconstitutionality of this law, we have a shot in the courts.

Regardless of what happens next, the point is that we cannot give up this fight. We must defend our constitutional and God-given rights from the liberal elitists in Annapolis, Washington and state capitals across the country who seek to take them away. And we must teach these “politicians” that their job is to legislate for the people, not to legislate for themselves like they seem to always do.

Jimmy Williams