North Carolina forensic lab ‘ignores, twists evidence’ according to
The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina reports that at least in some cases that the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation (NC SBI) lab has "ignored evidence" and "twist reports and court testimony when the trust threatened to undermine their cases." "At the bureau's crime lab, agents charged with using science to solve crimes have hidden test results or withheld notes that suggested the opposite of findings presented to the courts."
The police anywhere must be above reproach incidents like this impact individual defendants and the trust that police officers have to rely upon. The North Carolina SBI should be embarrassed and must take steps to immediately clean up the mess. Power corrupts. North Carolina SBI Officers that took part in this should be charged and in jail themselves. Behavior such as this is completely unacceptable. Read the full story.
In a somewhat related story, the science of DNA test statistics has come under scrutiny. In part, the article states:
"The DNA analyst who testified in Smith's trial said the chances of the DNA coming from someone other than Jackson were 1 in 95,000. But both the prosecution and the analyst's supervisor said the odds were more like 1 in 47. A later review of the evidence suggested that the chances of the second person's DNA coming from someone other than Jackson were closer to 1 in 13, while a different statistical method said the chance of seeing this evidence if the DNA came from Jackson is only twice that of the chance of seeing it if it came from someone else."
Police deny photographer right to take pictures in public in Romford, UK
For the details, please see here, first they take your guns, then they take your rights.. When you cede control of your life to the socialist, fascist, power-hungry politicians, they want to control every part of your life, all for a good cause of course.
Holder should appoint Special Prosecutor for Sestak Job Offer
CNN’s John King said to Axelrod that a job offer for Rep. Seststak “marches up into the gray area, perhaps into the red area of a felony. It is a felony to induce somebody by offering them a job.” Sestak has alleged on multiple occasions this year that he was offered a job to refrain from running. Gibbs has acknowledged that such conversations have taken place ("Lawyers in the White House and others have looked into conversations that were had with Congressman Sestak, and nothing inappropriate happened." and"Whatever conversations have been had are not problematic." On CBS' "Face the Nation" Gibbs said, "I'm not going to get further into what the conversations were. People who looked into them assure me they weren't inappropriate in any way.").
The offer would appear to violate federal criminal laws, including 18 U.S.C. 600, which prohibits promising a government position “as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity” or “in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office.” Likewise 18 USC 595 prohibits a federal official from interfering with the nomination or election for office and Section 18 USC 211 says that you can't accept anything of value in return for hiring somebody in the Federal government.
Either the Democrat candidate for the Senate has lied multiple times or a felony has taken place. One would think that the media would care to investigate and a Special Prosecutor should be appointed.
Axelrod replied to CNN's King that “If such things happened they would constitute a serious breach of the law, and when the allegations were looked into there is no evidence of such a thing." And when Ted Bundy was asked to look in the killings of which he was accused, he found that there was no evidence that he had been involved. Thankfully other people investigated Bundy. We don't give the people accused of a crime the responsibility and authority to investigate the allegations themselves. Hence the Special Prosecutor.
For reference:
Sec. 600. Promise of employment or other benefit for political
activity
Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment,
position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit,
provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of
Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such
benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any
political activity or for the support of or opposition to any
candidate or any political party in connection with any general or
special election to any political office, or in connection with any
primary election or political convention or caucus held to select
candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
AMENDMENTS
1994 - Pub. L. 103-322 substituted "fined under this title" for
"fined not more than $10,000".
1976 - Pub. L. 94-453 substituted $10,000 for $1,000 maximum
allowable fine.
1972 - Pub. L. 92-225 struck out "work," after "position,",
inserted "contract, appointment," after "compensation," and "or any
special consideration in obtaining any such benefit," after "Act of
Congress,", and substituted "in connection with any general or
special election to any political office, or in connection with any
primary election or political convention or caucus held to select
candidates for any political office" for "in any election".
EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1972 AMENDMENT
Amendment by Pub. L. 92-225 effective Dec. 31, 1971, or sixty
days after date of enactment [Feb. 7, 1972], whichever is later,
see section 408 of Pub. L. 92-225, set out as an Effective Date
note under section 431 of Title 2, The Congress.
U.N. Elects Iran to Commission on Women’s Rights-Definition of Irony
The definition of IRONY:
U.N. Elects Iran to Commission on Women's Rights ... "handing a four-year seat on the influential human rights body to a theocratic state in which stoning is enshrined in law and lashings are required for women judged 'immodest.'"
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/04/29/elects-iran-commission-womens-rights/
“Liberty or Death? No thanks! Screw the liberty, just give me health insurance!”
On the 235th anniversary of one of the greatest calls for liberty - "Give me Liberty, or give me Death!" - the President of the United States signed one of the biggest curtailments of human freedom in United States history. The irony may have been lost on Washington leadership today, and perhaps the quotation from Washington, DC, today would have been "Liberty or death? Why so extreme? Screw the liberty, just give me health insurance!"
Remember this quotation, it is all the more relevant today:
"It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace — but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775
Democrats adopt the Jim Crow “one drop rule” to attack critics of President Obama as ‘racists’!
The "one drop rule" was one of the most odious and infamous rules of the Jim Crow era. Now it being given new life by the Democrat Party in order to silence criticism of President Obama. The Democrat machine uses it to impugn the "race" of President Obama. Instead of accepting the fact that critics of the President are attacking his policies, the Democrat establishment attacks those who disagree with the President as "racists."
Ignoring for now the stupidity of believing skin color or eye color or hair color is an indication of "race" - we're all part of the human race - what the Democrat defenders are saying is that "since the President is 'black' anyone who attacks him is a racist."
Now why is that relevant? Simple. President Obama's father was "black" from Kenya. President Obama's mother was "white" from Kansas. Now to be labeled a "racist" for attacking the President's policies, one has to accept that President Obama is "black." Given that one parent was "white" and the other "black," one must accept the most repulsive, vile, and repugnant "one drop rule" from the Jim Crow era - which meant that "one drop of 'black blood'" essentially made one "non-white." In fact, it was much worse than that. In 1911, Arkansas pass Act 320, a.k.a. the "one-drop rule," making "interracial cohabitation" a felony and defining as "Negro" anyone "who has...any negro blood whatever." The Supreme Court remedied this stupidity in 1967 when it over-turned the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, but now the racists in the Democrat Party want to bring it back. (For an authoritative discussion, see the book "Who is Black" by F. James Davis, excerpts of which are available on the internet).
Are the people who say that attacks on the President's policies are racist really advocating adoption of the "one drop rule"? Are the racist Democrats really espousing the "one drop rule" for the President? They are making the argument that the most infamous racists in history were making: that one drop of "black" blood makes you black. The "one drop" rule, infamous in the Jim Crow era. Talk about the critics embracing the worst of the racist past and using it to call others racist!
Skin color is irrelevant, freedom and policies are the only concerns. The true racists are those who think that one's skin color is relevant and that the "one drop" rule should apply to the President. The President would get the same criticism whomever his parents were, just as President Bush did for some of his idiotic policies. Under the Jim Crow system employed regarding criticism of President Obama, a black mother can never have a white baby, while a white mother can have a black baby. Is that rational? Is it even relevant? No, dividing people by skin color is a technique used to gather power by the divide and conquer mentality. People have the right to be free no matter their eye color, hair color or skin color. This policy means so much for Thurgood Marshall's insistence that "classifications and distinctions based upon race or color have no moral or legal validity in our society" and Martin Luther King's wish that his children would be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
Family history and genealogy is a wonderful treasure, but it has no place in government policy. "Race" is a bad concept who's time has long gone. Everyone in the United States is "American" without any hyphens. It is time that people started to behave that way.
SEN. BYRD SINGLE-HANDEDLY STOPPED PRESIDENT CLINTON FROM USING RECONCILIATION
How times have changed. Senator Byrd (D), 4/5/2001 (video), transcript:
The Democratic Leadership pleaded with me at length to agree to support the idea that the Clinton Health Care Bill should be included in that year's reconciliation package.
They came to my office on the floor below. President Clinton got on the phone and called me also and pressed me to allow his massive health care bill to be insulated by reconciliations protection. He called me on the telephone.
I felt that changes as dramatic as the Clinton health care package which would affect every man, woman, and child in the United States should be subject to scrutiny. I said Mr. President I can not in good conscience turn my face the other way. That's why we have a Senate, to amend and debate freely. That health bill, as important as it is, is so complex, so far reaching that the people of the country need to know what's in it. And moreover Mr. President, we Senator's need to know what's in it before we vote.
And he accepted that. He accepted that and thanked me and we said goodbye.
I could not, I would not, and I did not allow that package to be handled in such a cavalier manner. It was the threat of the use of the Byrd rule. Reconciliation was never, never, never intended to be shield, to be used as a shield, for controversial legislation.
Even ignoring the un-Constitutionality of the bill - which the
Shows with gays could lose Florida tax credit
A proposal that would increase current tax credits from two to five percent of productions costs for shows considered "family friendly." This would not include shows that featured "gay characters."
Florida, how about being "family friendly" by lowering taxes for everyone? Come on, this is as stupid as judging someone by the color of their skin or the color of their eyes.
The difference between a free society and a nation of parasites and hosts are bills like the health care bill.
The difference between a free society and a nation of parasites and hosts are bills like the health care bill.
Saying “no” is admirable if it is pro-liberty.
Saying "no" is a moral imperative to protect the freedom guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Saying "no" is admirable if it is pro-liberty. Compromising your principles when the result is a loss of freedom for the country is immoral and a violation of Congress' oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.