Friday, May 29, 2009

Quote for the Day

"Arguing that the words of the Constitution have no fixed meaning is tantamount to arguing that we have no Constitution; a Constitution serves no purpose if the branches of government it is supposed to limit can define their own powers." --W. James Antle III

I Wonder Why?

"According to the U.S. Marshals Service, the number of threats against federal judges and prosecutors has mushroomed from 500 in 2003 to 1,278 in 2008. It is on track to go even higher this year." [link]

I wonder if it has anything to do with completely stupid, anti-freedom, anti-liberty, and anti-Constitution decisions that they seem to routinely make? Does anyone else out there have any ideas on why? I mean I have only been writing for a few months and I have found these dumb decisions or statements to be rather revealing about what our judges think. These threats wouldn't have to do with ideologies that go against the grain of America would it?

Goodbye Several Amendments in the Bill of Rights!

"A California federal judge ruled Thursday that mandatory DNA collection for all individuals facing federal felony charges is constitutional, dealing a setback to civil liberties advocates.

U.S. District Court Judge Gregory G. Hollows upheld the DNA Fingerprint Act, a 2006 law which allows federal law enforcement officials to collect DNA from individuals "arrested, facing charges, or convicted" of federal offenses. " [link]

Is it any surprise that this ruling came from a judge in the "land of the left"? I can deal with the part about convicted felons having their DNA on file. What I cannot stomach is just having DNA on file for those only arrested or facing charges.

Has anyone ever heard of due process, innocent until proven guilty, self incrimination? Judges that rule like this...well lets just say more oak trees need to be planted.

Tragedy in NЄw ЎoЯК

"A plainclothes policeman who drew his gun while chasing someone he had found rummaging through his car was shot and killed by a fellow officer who was driving by and saw the pursuit, the police commissioner said." [link]

This is truly a tragedy that an officer died in the line of duty. However it goes to show that even trained officers can make "blunders" with firearms. Did the officer that fired even attempt to identify himself, did he even have to. The article makes mention that the officer that was killed was black and the one that shot him was white. Did this play a role? If the police go around shooting each other then what chance does an unarmed citizen have?