Iran Sentences 5 More To Death in Postelection Civil Turmoil

The sentencing of five more opposition leaders to death brings the total number given an order of supreme sacrifice by Islamic justice to eight. This is not surprising given the Islamic culture of the Arabic countries.

It began almost 3,800 years ago during the reign of Hammurabi, a little-known (outside of Biblical and Legal scholars) King of Babylon. A man of his time - a time of violence and upheaval - he instituted the "Code of Hammurabi", the earliest-known example of a ruler proclaiming publicly to his people an entire body of laws, arranged in orderly groups, so that all men might read and know what was required of them. The code was carved upon a black stone monument, eight feet high, and clearly intended to be reared in public view.

The code then regulates in clear and definite strokes the organization of society. The judge who blunders in a law case is to be expelled from his judgeship forever, and heavily fined. The witness who testifies falsely is to be slain. Indeed, all the heavier crimes are made punishable with death. Even if a man builds a house badly, and it falls and kills the owner, the builder is to be slain. If the owner's son was killed, then the builder's son is slain. We can see where the Hebrews learned their law of "an eye for an eye." These grim retaliatory punishments take no note of excuses or explanations, but only of the fact--with one striking exception. An accused person was allowed to cast himself into "the river," the Euphrates. Apparently the art of swimming was unknown; for if the current bore him to the shore alive he was declared innocent, if he drowned he was guilty. So we learn that faith in the justice of the ruling gods was already firmly, though somewhat childishly, established in the minds of men.

There were 282 of these "laws" established in the code, most of which call for a penalty of death if violated, which today's western culture views as outrageously cruel. But there was no "western world" known at that time. The Code of Hammurabi is the foundation of all law in the majority of middle eastern countries. Add to that Muslim sharia law, which is itself draconian in nature, and you have a recipe for extreme punishment for what westerners would consider relatively minor offenses.

During the period of unrest and civil disturbance following Iran's recent questionable election, the only fatalities were inflicted upon the opposition by the government security forces. Those prisoners identified as being members of the opposition were, for the most part, charged with civil disturbances and property crimes (vandalism), neither of which would warrant the death penalty in any civilized society. But sharia "law" is a law that punishes victims of crime as quickly as it punishes the criminal.

Where is the world's outrage against such extreme penalties for relatively minor violations of law? Where are the bleeding heart liberals? Where is the loud voice of the international press? Where is a statement deploring these Draconian punishments from the President of the United States? Why are these actions treated by most as a footnote rather than a headline? This is the 21st century, not the 16th century BC!

Y'all Gotta Excuse Old Jimmy - His Mouth Has Survived The Death of His BRAIN!

Former President James Earl "Jimmy" Carter, Jr. allowed his hummingbird brain to gain control of his hippopotamus mouth, and suddenly blurted out, "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African American." Let's dissect that sentence, shall we?

First of all "I think" is an overstatement. Jimmy rarely thought when he was occupying the White House, and now that he's 85 years old he probably he likes to think he's thinking. As for his statement that there is "intensely demonstrated animosity toward Barack Obama"... the old man has apparently forgotten what the word "intensely" means. Jimmy needs to look back at the Democrats constant attacks on President George W. Bush during Gee Dubbya's last term to get the true meaning of "intensely demonstrated animosity". The only part Carter got right was that Barack Obama is President (Rosalynn Carter probably had to remind him of that). Obama is not "a black man", he is a gray man. Obama is an equal mix of the black and white races - who has elected to identify with - and emphasize - only with that portion of his genetic makeup which is black. (Being black, combined with his ability to say nothing meaningful better than most people, is, after all, the thing which got him elected. It was his "hook", his gimmick, which he played very well against the guilt many white people have been carrying around for decades. His campaign was essentially saying to the country, "Prove to the world that you aren't racists - elect Barack Hussein Obama - a totally unqualified black man - as the next President of the United States of America!") And, finally, there's the "African American" claim. His father was an African national, and his mother was an American national. I will concede the "African" part, but it takes more than simply being born in the USA to be an American. Part of being an American is having pride in America, its history, its culture, its constitution, and its singularly unique accomplishment of having gone - in a scant 200 years - from l'enfant terrible (a rebellious infant) to world leadership. This is an achievement that heretofore had taken other nations a thousand years - or more - to accomplish... an achievement that most nations failed to accomplish even with a thousand year head start. One does not show pride in their country by traveling the globe apologizing for that country. One does not demonstrate pride in their country by rejecting its culture. And, one does not show pride in one's country by diverting it from the path of success, or by belittling, ignoring, or attempting to change it's Constitution! There are not enough voters of color in the USA to have elected Barack Obama as president if every one of them voted several times. It was those "racist" white Americans who carried Obama into the White House.

Can we not dislike Obama simply because his only qualification for office of President is that he carried the majority of the popular vote (many of whom are now regretting that decision)? Obama is a professional politician with less than 180 days in the U.S. Senate, who voted "present" over 90 percent of the time (thereby avoiding any real commitment to anything), and spent twice as many taxpayer paid days campaigning for president as he did fulfilling his duties in the Senate! Can we not demonstrate animosity toward any man (or any Congress) whose policies would destroy our financial system? Is it wrong that we feel uncomfortable with a President who has a documented history of association with terrorists, and intentionally surrounds himself with tax cheats, avowed Communists, Marxists, Maoists and other assorted socialists and revolutionaries in an effort to change our system of governance from a Democratic Republic to a dictatorship? Is it wrong that patriotic Americans are both embarrassed and angered by a President who displays a general disdain for the people and the nation over which he presides? If the best plan he can come up with is, "We will spend our way out of bankruptcy!", do we not have the right to voice our displeasure at such arrogant ignorance? America may need a few little "tweaks" to correct some minor flaws... but it does not need to be re-engineered from the ground up!

If you think there's any chance I could be wrong about this... think again! Your brain is probably as atrophied as Jimmy Carters...