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."

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.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/04/29/elects-iran-commission-womens-rights/

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

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.

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 Senators have sworn to protect and defend  - the Democrat Senate should be ashamed of their mob-like, thugish behavior.  They are an utter disgrace to the Senate.

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcBaSP31Be8