News reports reveal that she was shopping for marijuana and while that doesn’t excuse the crime, it provides further proof of an audacious, arrogant, and angry generation with no fear or respect for God or man.

I’m glad I don’t know any details about the killers, but it doesn’t matter. Whether they are black or white; rich or poor, Baptists or Buddhists (or Muslim), educated or dumb as a box of rocks, they deserve to die. When America’s youth (and adults) watch two or three teens strapped onto a gurney and executed, it might send a message that if a person takes a life, his or her life will be taken by the state.

That could save hundreds of lives by letting potential killers know we are fed up and ready to deal with killers.

When a beastly thing like this happens, many bleeding hearts wring their hands and ask, “Why did something like this happen? What could motivate such people?” It’s called evil. Everyone is born with an evil nature that must be harnessed, molded, and motived to do right instead of wrong. And evil people must be dealt with proportionate to their crime. And murder requires death—even for teens.

Now enter the whiners who shed copious tears over the killer and plead for leniency, compassion, and a second chance but few tears are shed for the victim and her family. Besides, such whining won’t help the victim or future victims.

Vicious killers must understand—you take a life, you lose your life.

It is incredible that opponents of the death penalty tell us that it perpetuates violence. No, it ends violence, at least as far as the killer is concerned. Death penalty critics can’t see the vast difference in the state execution of a premeditated killer and a person who commits premeditated murder. Sure, both are violent; however, one is deserved and the other is not.

Government is supposed to protect the innocent and punish the guilty. Those are the two functions of government, yet our states are failing at both.

It is almost always true that those people who oppose the death penalty for convicted killers are almost always loud proponents of abortion! Let’s see now: they don’t want vicious killers to be killed, but they do want innocent, unborn babies to be butchered! I don’t understand that kind of thinking. At least the killer had a proper trial with a defense attorney and modern science to use in his defense. A butchered baby can’t raise a hand or whimper, “Please help me.”

Additionally, convicted kidnappers, rapists, and traitors should get the death penalty as they did 50 years ago.

I have asked my opponents if I have a right to defend myself if a person is trying to kill me, and most of them agreed that it is acceptable. I then asked them, “If it is morally and legally right for me to defend myself—even killing my attacker—before I am killed, why is it wrong for the state to kill him after he has killed me?” That includes teenagers. I would not have been concerned about my attacker’s age, and neither should the state. My critics are strangely quiet.

One of the best arguments against the death penalty at any age is that an innocent person may be executed. In fact, irresponsible journalists have boldly stated that 4% of death row felons were in fact, innocent. But no one can give any supporting evidence. That’s called fake news. The critics point out those who were on death row and were later proved to be innocent and that’s wonderful. But that does not prove that innocent people have been executed. It proves our less-than-perfect system does work. Everyone admits to the possibility of an innocent person being executed.

We live as imperfect beings in an imperfect world so there is a possibility that an innocent person has been or will be executed, but that is true in many areas of life. We must live with that possibility of death when permitting bungee jumping, riding in vehicles at theme parks, flying or jumping out of planes, etc. There is no doubt that if we dropped the speed limit to 40 miles per hour, we would save thousands of lives, but considering the public outcry and impact on the economy, we permit people to take the chance. Innocent people die in all the above scenarios–with state approval.

If leftists remove the death penalty and a convicted killer kills a prison guard, does the critic of the death penalty share some of the guilt? Or, if a killer escapes and kills again, does the critic of the death penalty bear some of the guilt for the additional killing? If not, why not? After all, we are told that if an innocent person is executed then those who support the death penalty are partly responsible for it. Why does the sword not cut in the both directions?

Often, in desperation, my death penalty opponents remind me that most nations have banned the death penalty as cruel and inhumane. I usually pause for a few seconds and say, “So?” When European nations were ruled by tyrants such as Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini, the U.S. didn’t emulate them by looking for a home-grown dictator. So, why follow them in their folly now by abolishing a reasonable and scriptural tool for the sake of society? European nations are also collecting firearms from law-abiding citizens, and opening their borders to almost anyone. Should we follow them in those directions? I think not.

Why should taxpayers feed, clothe, lodge, and medically care for a convicted killer for 25 or more years while waiting for numerous appeals or to serve a life term that is not a life term? Why should Tessa’s killer live in air-conditioned comfort as he watches television and works out in an expensive gym? If a flawed judicial system gives him “life” in prison, it should be at hard, very hard labor doing repulsive work with any proceeds going to his victim’s family.

State officials had better get the message that we must feel safe in our homes, churches, cars, schools, and streets; or the seeds will be sown for anarchy, vigilante justice, and lynch law.

I am a bleeding-heart Christian Conservative, but I have a brain that tells me rebels to society must be punished. For the sake of society, killers must be executed. My tears are for the victim and future victims who will die because the state refuses to do its job.

Additionally, it is striking that most of the liberal newspapers are critical of the death penalty yet they applauded President Trump’s missile strikes in Syria in April of 2017. Eight out of ten of the largest U.S. newspapers supported the attacks although they are critical of the death penalty! Why is it acceptable to kill bad guys in Syria but wrong to kill bad guys in Sing Sing? And often, innocent people are killed in the air strikes. Leftists are not the best thinkers.

The position of executing teen killers is powerfully ridiculed on the one side and usually weakly defended on the other side. Society must act now because they are raising a generation of brutal, barbaric, and bloody killers without a conscience.

(Dr. Don Boys is a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives who ran a large Christian school in Indianapolis and wrote columns for USA TODAY for 8 years. Boys authored 18 books, the most recent Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! eBook is available here with the printed edition (and other titles) at www.cstnews.com. Follow him on Facebook at Don Boys, Ph.D.; and visit his blog. Send request to DBoysphd@aol.com for a free subscription to his articles, and click here to support his work with a donation.)

Enough is enough! It’s time for states to send a message to kids: if you kill, you will be executed by the state after a fair, fast, if not final trial! After the trial, permit him a state-financed appeal then on to the execution chamber. No killer should be alive more than a year after the crime.

It seems many “lost” teenage males are getting their fifteen minutes of fame by, for the most part, using legal weapons to kill fellow students. The shooters are usually losers, leftists, or loonies—usually saturated with potent mind-altering and personality-altering drugs. A study by the liberal Mother Jones magazine verified that about two-thirds of mass killings since 1980 were committed by the “mentally unstable.” If they are truly mentally ill then they belong in a secure medical facility.

My critics will point out that the Santa Fe shooter was not a leftist since he had a Nazi medal on his coat and that exactly supports my position. The Nazis were on the political left–Socialists—the National Socialist Workers’ Party as personified in Adolph Hitler.

Those young killers who don’t save the state a huge pile of money by using their weapon one more time, should be led down the last mile to “old sparky” or to hanging or to some other death chamber!

Gasp!

Those with a soft head will be appalled at the suggestion; however, when America’s youth see one or two teens put to death, it will save numerous lives. Deterrence works.

Many leftists shriek that it is inhumane to execute teens, even vicious teen killers and it would be state-approved killing! Those same people are adamant that a woman has a right to kill her innocent unborn baby, yet the state should not execute a killer after his defense has been heard in court! Moreover, if my critics argue that teens are too young to be killed, it negates their abortion argument. After all, the states kill millions of innocent unborn babies every year. I only want to execute a few much older teens for heinous killings.

Such executions would produce at least two results: the executed killer would never kill again and his execution would send a signal to other teens.

Moreover, it is no valid argument that youth should be exempt from execution following a premeditated killing. Who decided that rule? Upon what basis is it founded?

We are told that we should forgive the killer, especially the young killer; but I remind them that no killer has asked for my forgiveness. Besides, he didn’t take the life of one of my relatives so I don’t have the right to forgive him.

During a talk show, forgiveness and mercy were mentioned as related to a mother who drowned her two little boys. I had just demanded a death sentence for her (after my friend Jerry Falwell asked for leniency), but the judge I was debating asked, “But what about mercy, Dr. Boys?” I replied, “Mercy you get from God; from the courts you expect justice.” He should have known that.

The judge said, “But all the clergymen in her small town have asked for mercy in her behalf.” I said, “Her two dead children would liked to have seen some mercy from her, but instead they were held under the water until the bubbles disappeared. Besides, preachers asking for mercy is not much of an argument, since most preachers pull on panty hose each morning and wear lace on their shorts.” The host said, “What did you say?” I repeated it, and he said, “I thought that’s what you said.”

The judge was silent.

Members of society should demand of our legislators that crime must not pay. That message must resonate to every city and country town that killers will not be pampered and made heroes in the media. Killers will be executed and after all, that can facilitate the best kind of rehabilitation. If a person knows he is going to die in 30 days, while the ACLU, PAW, NAACP and other radical groups whine, weep, and light candles for him, then maybe he will experience the ultimate in rehabilitation and turn to Christ for genuine salvation.

Sure, the death penalty is state-approved killing; and killing the killer, even a teen, will show compassion and responsibility by the state since it will eliminate further killings and deter others from doing so. It’s called, tough love.

Passing laws have little effect on those determined to break those laws. If each state passed a law making all guns illegal, only good guys would obey. After all, it is obvious that the bad guys are not going to obey any law that would frustrate their plans. It seems superfluous to remind my readers that it is illegal in every state to use any kind of gun to murder someone.

People who love others will want a society where wrong is punished and right is promoted–In the Indiana House of Representatives, I even voted to bring back old Sparky!

When a few young people are executed, the “glory” of their killings will dissipate; and the medicated, angry, and bullied kid will go back to his video games for his satisfaction, not shoot his way to glory.

Carry out the death penalty on a few teens for the safety of thousands of others.

Boys’ new book Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! was published recently by Barbwire Books; to get your copy, click here. An eBook edition is also available.

After a couple months, I received a call from a publisher who was interested in using the article as a book chapter dealing with teenage crime. He sent me a $500 check and I forgot about it. I don’t know the title of the book, but I received critical comments for years.

Yesterday, when I went to my website, I discovered the article and saw 50 replies that had been added over the years. The comments that I had never read were pathetic and make curious reading—the poor grammar, punctuation, logic, etc. Anyway, I decided to update and rewrite the original column as reproduced below since it is so timely:

Our city streets are dark, dirty, dangerous, and often dominated by raping, robbing, and rampaging children. Juveniles under 18 accounted for almost 14% of all violent crime arrests and over 22% of all property crime arrests according to the CDC for 2010 and 784 teens were arrested for murder!

We are seeing more and more very young people commit serious, sordid, and sadistic crimes–some kids as young as six! As families, homes, and churches implode, a subculture of juvenile criminals has developed.

Juveniles used to be considered young, athletic students with ruddy complexion, squeaky voice and acne, but now they are often vindictive, vicious, and violent criminals.

We have been assured that “there is no such thing as a bad boy” (or girl); however, the fact is, there is no such thing as a good boy (or girl). No kid has to be taught to lie, steal, talk back, rebel, etc. It is human nature. Theologians call it the “fallen nature,” as a result of original sin. But since that is not politically correct, men have been conned into believing that all people are basically good–then they try to justify and explain why “good” people commit outrageously brutal crimes.

Part of the problem of juvenile crime is the criminal justice system itself. While ours may be the “best in the world” (what does that say about the rest of the world?) it is long overdue for a major overhaul. It is part of my recommended crime bill to insist on that overhaul.

Kids must no longer have a free ride until age 18. They must get the message that they will be held accountable for their actions with their names and photos published in the media, and their record following them if they continue into adult crime. Of course, they should not be glorified. Studies show that a juvenile’s crime record is one of the most valid predictors of repeat adult crime.

Young criminals should not be in school, and while the bleeding hearts whine about those kids, I prefer to show my concern for the large group who want to learn. Put the violent kids in a boot camp where they can be made into “young marines” under the tutelage of a traditional leatherneck trained at Parris Island.

Get them up at 5:00 a.m., feed them a big breakfast, and work them until they drop. Absolutely no back talk and only magic words such as “yes sir,” “no sir,” “please,” and “thank you, sir” would be permitted. And no psychologist, psychiatrist, social worker, or lawyer within 100 miles!

Those kids who are involved in nonviolent crime would be treated less severely. They would be forced to make restitution to their victims, clean up any mess they made and spend time in structured community service.

Kids must learn that justice will be swift, sure, and severe in the courts if not at home and school. Personal accountably will be the reality from now on. That will appall many social scientists and psychologists who tell us that a youth person is not responsible for personal actions. It all goes back, we are told, to poor potty training, low self-esteem, poor living conditions, etc., so a young person should not be held to an accounting for his crimes. My intellectual and scientific reply is poppycock, balderdash and a generous portion of hogwash—especially hogwash.

We are told that kids murder, mug, and maim because they grew up in poverty; however, poverty doesn’t cause crime; crime causes poverty. Juveniles, like adults, commit crimes because they choose to do so. And they must be held accountable.

When young criminals kill and rape, they should be treated like adults, even executing them! Most of us are horrified at that thought but if capital punishment can be defended (and it can be) then who is to say one must be 21? If a 16-year-old commits a vicious murder, who says he should not pay with his life? Of course, there must be an age below which a child would not be executed, but that is a political decision made in each state. Sadly, few politicians have the courage to make difficult decisions.

So the message to kids should be clear, concise, and conclusive. No free ride until 18. No anonymity. No blaming poverty, parents, or potty training for criminality. No more community service for rape and murder. Even the dullest teen will understand that society finally considers leniency a thing of the past. Hopefully such prior leniency will be considered lunacy.

Kids think they can get away with murder and they will continue to believe that until citizens force the criminal justice system to get its act together. When a few teens “walk the last mile,” other teens will get the message that sane, sensible, and scared people are taking over from the bleating hearts.

The radical leftist, upon reading this, will stand up and on cue, bleed all over himself; however, my heart bleeds for the innocent victims–not for criminals, young or old.

Boys’ new book Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! was published recently by Barbwire Books; to get your copy, click here. An eBook edition is also available.

I have heard that argument many times on talk shows. Death penalty opponents suggest that in fairness, society should not execute people, especially poor people since no rich people have been executed in America with the exception of one mobster in 1944 and a drug kingpin in 2001! I tell them that more poor people are executed for murder because they commit more murders! After all, there are more poor people than rich people. It is also a fact that rich people don’t usually have the motives to kill as often. They have money, friends, and possessions so they usually only kill during very emotional times–hatred, jealousy, or revenge.

Of course, when a rich person kills another person, he or she should get the death penalty as poor people do. Yes, rich people can afford better lawyers than poor people, but that is a fact of life that must be accepted.

We are also told that more poor Blacks are executed than whites; however, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty does not discriminate against Blacks. Furthermore, a Stanford University study revealed that killers of Whites (whether the killers are black or white) are more likely to get sentenced to death than killers of black people (whether the killers are black or white). But Blacks who kill Whites were less likely to receive death sentences than were Whites who killed Whites. Doesn’t sound like discrimination to me unless maybe it is reverse discrimination!

It is also interesting that women commit about 13% of the murders in the U.S. yet less than 1% are executed. Maybe we can expect the screaming ladies of NOW to do something about this glaring inequality and injustice. Unless you look good in blue, don’t hold your breath until the feminists carry signs demanding, “Execute more women,” “Equality on Death Row,” or “Put more women on death row.”

We must demand that all people be treated like people whatever their color, gender, or social status. The answer is to mete out punishment fairly, not drop it altogether. A study by the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) found that in 2005, “there were 16,692 cases of murder and nonnegligent (sic) manslaughter nationally; there were 60 executions.” That is not justice.

“But if we execute all the killers (2,943) on death row in the various states, that would be a bloodbath,” say the nonthinkers. However, we have a bloodbath going on every day. There’s a bloodbath in Chicago, Baltimore, and St. Louis; and almost all the victims are poor and black.

If there is going to be a bloodbath, let it be the blood of convicted killers–rich or poor. If the 50 states were to execute all 2,943 killers tomorrow morning at 6:00, it would sure send a message to other potential killers, wouldn’t it? Of the 2,943 convicted killers on death row, about half are white, half are black, and 2,888 are male, and 55 are female.

Authorities must also get the message that felons should be in prison, not on the streets. Streets are for people who obey and respect the law. Rebels, even poor rebels, belong in prison. But at least 30% of those arrested for violent crimes were on probation, parole, or on bail when the crimes were committed. We must send officials a message: keep violent criminals in prison until their sentences are served!

The U.S. Justice Department’s annual report revealed that two-thirds of those on death row had prior felony convictions and a full 10% of those killers had murdered before! That 10% should not have been permitted to prey on innocent people because they should have been executed after their first murder. You’ve heard of three strikes and you’re out, but it should be one strike and you’re dead. No second chance for killers–poor or rich.

Scores of people have told me on talk shows that an innocent person may be executed so we should do away with the death penalty, especially since most of them are poor. Well, since we live in an imperfect world, I’ll concede the possibility that an innocent person may be executed. But without the death penalty, there will be the certainty of many more innocent killings.

I have also heard the old canard that it is better to let a hundred guilty men go free than to execute one innocent man. Now, I’m not advocating executing innocent people, and the thought is horrifying, but it is an inane statement. We are comparing one innocent man to hundreds of other innocent people who would be killed if the hundred killers went free. Those on the other side of this issue don’t think.

Often the opponents of the death penalty affirm that many poor innocent people have been executed who could not afford top legal advice, so executions are unjust. As usual, they are wrong. They usually quote the Stanford Law Review to prove their contention, but they didn’t read the complete article! Professors Bedan and Radelet looked at 2,300 capital crime convictions since 1900 and said they thought 25 men were wrongly executed. The professors “believed” the men were innocent, but they did not prove their case. They even listed notorious cases such as Sacco and Vanzetti, Hauptmann, the Rosenbergs, etc., all cold-blooded killers and traitors whose cases were reviewed by various courts. The professors ended up admitting, “…in none of the cases…can we point to any state action indicating the belief that the person executed was innocent.” Evidently, my critics never read the full article.

Yes, it could happen. It may have already happened, but it is unlikely with all the restrictions placed on the police, the emphasis on the rights of the accused, the jury trial, numerous appeals, DNA, and usually a long period on death row. Add to that the fact that most governors hand out pardons like campaign literature and are gutless “crybabies” who are super-sensitive to the bellowing and whining from leftist groups who have never seen a guilty killer they didn’t like.

Justice requires that no one should receive special treatment because he is poor, or rich, or sick, or young, or old, or famous, or infamous, or handsome, or ugly, or popular or hated.

Boys’ new book Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! was published recently by Barbwire Books; to get your copy, click here. An eBook edition is also available.

We are told that it is not moral to take a person’s life after he or she has been convicted of killing another human. However, from the beginning of time, civilization has understood that it is not only moral to execute killers, it must be done to protect civilization. Most sane people believe in personal self-defense and the death penalty is governmental self-defense. If a state refuses to execute killers, it is an abdication of responsibility and an invitation to anarchy.

It is also legal to execute killers if the governing apparatus (the state) authorizes its executive branch to carry out the order to do so. The people, through their legislators have decided that killers should be executed, so of course, it is legal.

Our first concern should be what the Bible teaches about the state putting people to death. If we can ascertain that, then it doesn’t matter what philosophers, theologians, sociologists, judges, criminologists and weeping, whining, and whimpering liberals have to say about the subject.

Genesis 9:6 clearly teaches that if a man sheds another person’s blood, then his life will be taken by the government. Moses wrote, “whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.” When a person premeditatedly takes a life, he not only assaults society but also attacks God since man was made in His image. For those who accept the Bible as binding on what we believe and practice, that should settle the issue.

However, sincere people tell us that God also told us, “Thou shalt not kill” so killing is wrong, but informed Sunday school pupils know that that verse means, “Thou shalt do no murder.” And of course, we should not murder. If there were a Bible prohibition against all killing then we would be prohibited from killing a fly, cattle, hog, etc. Nor could we kill in times of war or self-defense, but that is not the issue. The issue is what to do with murderers.

A few states have returned to the death penalty, but most of them are only playing with it. Execution is still not sure and very slow coming to the killers. A killer should know that after a fair, fast trial and one appeal, he goes to his death! He should be in the grave before the first anniversary of his victim’s death. Killers deserve to die. The blood of innocent ones cries out for justice, and one thing is sure: the executed killer will never kill again. That is justice, not vengeance.

The Death Penalty Information Center’s report proves that states are not really serious about the death penalty. “Although the United States is considered a death penalty country, executions are rare or non-existent in most of the nation: the majority of states–31 out of 50–have either abolished the death penalty or have not carried out an execution in at least 10 years. An additional 5 states have not had an execution in at least 5 years, for a total of 36 states with no executions in that time. Only 6 states carried out an execution in 2015, and only 3 states (TX, MO, and GA) accounted for 86% of the executions.” Few states are serious about executing killers.

But why not be humane and give the killer life in prison without possibility of parole? But that still doesn’t satisfy the scriptural demand that killers be killed, nor does it speak to justice. It also puts prison guards in jeopardy. Why not kill a guard during an escape attempt? Why not kill a fellow-prisoner during a fight? After all, the killers have nothing to lose. A life sentence can’t be any longer than life! And why shouldn’t thieves or kidnappers kill witnesses if there would be no death penalty hanging over their heads?

To hear death penalty opponents talk, you would think that our only argument is the deterrent effect of the death penalty which they say is weak. However, the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) reported that each execution deters an average of 18 murders, according to a 2003 nationwide study by professors at Emory University!

Deterrence is only an insignificant argument; (however, an executed killer never kills again)! Critics often point out that states without the death penalty have about the same killings as those that do execute killers. Of course, no one says that all killers are deterred. We know that no law deters everyone. Moreover, we do not know how many thousands of men thought of taking a life, then considered the death penalty and changed their minds.

Furthermore, we do know that many criminals have not taken guns to their crime scene because they might be forced to kill someone and “get the chair.” That is a deterrent.

If the states want to do something to deter murder they can clean up and radically change the public school system since about 90% of those on death row went no further than high school. So, evidently lack of education along with the social environment impacts the murder rate.

Another deterrent would be if the time between sentencing and execution were drastically shortened since the average time on death row is now 15.9 years! Some killers spend 25 or 30 years on death row! Shorten the time and save lives since potential killers get the message: they will die–soon if they take a life.

While preaching in Toronto, Canada I talked with a man who was the youngest police chief in Ireland. He said, “Dr. Boys, you might be interested to know that we asked nineteen convicted killers if they would have killed if Ireland had the death penalty.” He said, “All the killers replied that they would not have killed if Ireland had a death penalty.” Well, that’s from the experts!

Yes, it is moral, legal, and biblical to execute convicted killers. Those who really love people will demand that society execute convicted killers after a fair, fast trial and one appeal.

Boys’ new book Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! was published recently by Barbwire Books; to get your copy, click here. An eBook edition is also available.

He is serving a life sentence without parole (after his death sentence was commuted) for killing Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner in 1981. He spoke via a pre-record message. Abu-Jamal had received a BA from the school via correspondence in 1996 followed by an MA from California State University.

Abu-Jamal has been a busy boy but then taxpayers have provided him everything he needed so he could finish school, write columns, and appear on radio shows–while in prison! He has written six books and is an advocate for prisoner rights and civil rights. You see, the killer doesn’t have to get up early and get ready for a day of hard work. You provide him the environment and tools to become a new Renaissance man.

The slain officer’s widow said, “It’s not appropriate. His freedom was taken away when he murdered a police officer in the line of duty. It seems like our justice system allows murderers to continue to have a voice over the public airwaves and at college commencement. It’s despicable.” Sorry Maureen but it’s more than despicable. It’s nuts.

Abu-Jamal shot Faulkner in the back then shot him between the eyes when he (Abu-Jamal) interjected himself in his brother’s traffic arrest. But of course, racism was the catalyst for the whole incident according to the racists! The slain office was white. Abu-Jamal was also injured by a shot from Faulkner and when further police arrived on the scene, he was arrested and charged with first degree murder. When the arresting officers arrived at the scene, Abu-Jamal was sitting on a curb near Faulkner’s corpse. Unfortunately, the cop’s shot was not fatal to the black thug.

Five witnesses saw Abu-Jamal shoot Faulkner and the bullets that were taken from Faulkner’s chest and brain matched the .38 caliber handgun that was registered to the killer. Abu-Jamal’s gun was at his feet when the police arrived at the murder scene. Furthermore, the gun had five empty cartridges when investigators found it.

The killer’s brother refused to defend him at the trial! He told investigators at the crime scene: “I ain’t got nothing to do with this.”

The U. S. Supreme Court has ruled against the cop-killer three times as have lesser courts. But of course, everyone involved in trying to put Abu-Jamal where he can do limited harm is accused of being a racist. But then, sane people don’t care whether a killer is white, black, or polka dot; he should be strapped down in “Old Sparky” within a year or so after he kills.

A T-shirt was sold in the Philadelphia area with the blunt message: “Officer Danny Faulkner was murdered by Mumia Abu-Jamal who shouldn’t be in an 8 x 10 foot cell….He should be 6 feet closer to Hell.” I don’t usually like T-shirts with a message but I would buy that one.

His defenders include many of the looney left in Hollywood, San Francisco and Paris. Fidel Castro, the Berrigan brothers, Ramsey Clark, James Cone, Angela Davis, Snoop Dogg, Jesse Jackson, Van Jones, Norman Lear, Archbishop TuTu, Gloria Steinem, ad nauseam.

Another Abu-Jamal defender is Debo P. Adegbile whom Obama nominated in 2013 to become the U.S. Assistant Attorney General of the Justice Department’s civil rights division; however, in an unusual seizure of sanity, the nomination was rejected by a Senate committee because he was working with the NAACP to overturn the killer’s sentence.

Within days, Obama renominated the cop-killer’s defender again. When the nomination went to the full senate, even with Harry Reid’s objections, obfuscations, and obstructions, the senate refused to approve the candidate. Adegbile withdrew his nomination and announced he would join a prestigious law firm instead of working for you and me.

Every person who approved this sorry excuse for a commencement should be fired–from school board members to administrators. It seems Abu-Jamal is on the short list of college commencement speakers since he has already delivered his oratory at Evergreen State College in Washington and Antioch College in Ohio, Kent State University, Occidental College, and Merrill College.

The killer has been made an honorary citizen of approximately 25 cities around the world, including Copenhagen, Montreal, Palermo, and Paris. The New College of California School of Law even presented him with an honorary degree “for his struggle to resist the death penalty.” Abu-Jamal published an essay in the Yale Law Journal in 1991 dealing with the death penalty and some of his death row experiences. He has done numerous broadcasts for the online Prison Radio and written many columns for Jungle Welt, a German Marxist newspaper.

Wimpy, whiney, Goddard College President Bob Kenny said, the college holds twenty commencement ceremonies each year to provide personalized graduation ceremonies in each degree program. He added that each graduate acts as his own valedictorian– so everyone is a star. No one is last since everyone is first. There are no tests and no grades. The additional advantage is that each student builds his or her own curriculum! Isn’t higher education great?

In a HuffPost Live roundtable Wednesday, Will Creeley — the Director of Legal and Public Advocacy for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education — said that no matter how controversial, universities have every right to select whatever commencement speaker they want. Right, but parents have every right to not send their children to such a school or to financially support it. However, the students chose this speaker!

Students should not be inviting commencement speakers. And no college should be a cheerleader for a cop killer.

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”