Big Dogs House

I Thought Democrats Were For Privacy

May 20, 2010 Political

The House voted to allow the DNA of people to be taken from them if they are arrested even if they are never convicted of a crime.

Millions of Americans arrested for but not convicted of crimes will likely have their DNA forcibly extracted and added to a national database, according to a bill approved by the U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday.

By a 357 to 32 vote, the House approved legislation that will pay state governments to require DNA samples, which could mean drawing blood with a needle, from adults “arrested for” certain serious crimes. Not one Democrat voted against the database measure, which would hand out about $75 million to states that agree to make such testing mandatory. cnet

The politicians who voted for this believe that it gives law enforcement the tools it needs to fight crime and it will help solve cold cases. That is a bunch of baloney. This is nothing more than the government allowing more interference in your life. People are arrested all the time and released when it is discovered they did not commit the crime or there is not enough evidence. Some go to trial and win the case. Why should their DNA be drawn from them in these cases? If it is drawn then why should it be kept? What allows them to run the DNA of a person against a database to solve cold cases when that DNA was obtained from people not guilty of a crime?

What happened to the Democrats who got their panties in a wad when we wiretapped people suspected of terrorism? What happened to the so called party of privacy? What happened to standing up for people against the tyranny of government.

I have no problem with the government taking DNA from people convicted of crimes. I have a real problem when it is taken from people who have not been found guilty of anything. The problem with collecting any information is that it is seldom used in the manner stated. The information from the Census has been used in the past to do some nasty things like find Japanese Americans and lock them away. The military collects DNA and the stated and written reason for the collection was to identify remains. However, military DNA has been searched in criminal cases and used against the people who provided it for identification in the event of their death.

If the military was only going to use it to identify dead service members then why does the military keep the DNA after people leave the service?

Never trust the government and never trust the Democrats when they talk about their support for our privacy. They want control and they want it in all aspects of our lives.

Perhaps we should collect the DNA of all politicians and run it against the national database to see how many love children are running around. Maybe we can use it to identify the ones whose epithelial cells are all over bribe money…

Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: Democrats, dna, house of representatives, illegal collection, lies

Judge Allows Physical Attack To Enforce Court Order

Jun 7, 2009 Political

Judge Sara Sheldon Sperrazza of Niagra County New York ruled that it was OK to Taser a person who refused to comply with a court order in order to execute the order. A man refused to give his DNA in a case. He had given it before but the police sent it to the wrong lab so they could not use it. They got another court order and the man refused to provide his DNA. He said they would have to Taser him to get it, and they did.

The police Tasered Ryan Smith and took his DNA.

It does not matter to me that this guy was probably guilty, what matters is the abuse of him in enforcing a court order and the implications this might have on others. Suppose there was a court order for you to turn over certain paperwork related to a case and you refused. In times past you would be put in jail until you complied with the order. After this ruling the cops might just Taser you and then look through your stuff until they find it. There are many court orders that are disobeyed. There are legal remedies designed to get people to comply but physical abuse is not one of them.

Reporters who refuse to give up a source per a court order are sent to jail until they do. What happens if they are Tasered until they give up the source? Why not just water board them and be done with it?

This judge gave a moronic ruling in this case and it should be overturned.

In third world countries they use physical violence to obtain information. In the US we have laws that prevent this.

Then again, we have laws that punish voter intimidation and the Obama Justice Department ignores them. We have laws preventing ILLEGALS from registering to vote but Obama’s Justice Department ignores them. Hell, we have rules that are supposed to punish people for being here ILLEGALLY but the government ignores those.

In any event, I guess it is not surprising that Smith was physically abused in order to obtain information given that Obama and his peeps want to move us to Socialism and Obama is more aligned with the Communists than the free people.

Welcome to the kind of America the Democrats accused (unjustly) our troops of. The gulags cannot be too far behind.

Tags: coercion, dna, niagra, taser

Gucci, Gucci, Goo

Apr 26, 2009 Political

Eugenic-  Pertaining to eugenics; relating to, or tending towards, the production of fine offspring. (eugenics)-  The scientific application of the findings of the study of heredity to human beings with the object of perpetuating those inherent and hereditary qualities which aid in the development of the human race.

That sounds like quite a mouthful, doesn’t it? It also sounds fairly benign, until you begin, like a sore, to pick at it. Once you begin to look at the deeper meanings and think about the history of eugenics, this doesn’t sound like such a good thing, but this is what is happening under the surface here in the good old U.S. of A., as well as the European countries.

Since 1992, in Minnesota, there has been a DNA database that they keep on all newborns, and I have found that many other states also have a variant of this database. Let me explain.

Every time a baby is born, a nurse takes blood from a pinprick on the baby’s foot- this is to check for diseases and other conditions that the baby might have- a good thing, right? But then, whereas the hospital used to destroy the blood sample, now it is taken to a lab for gene sequencing, so these doctors can find out if your baby might be prone to cancer, Parkinson’s disease, Muscular Dystrophy, and a horde of other conditions that plague mankind. The Government keeps this blood database for comparison and experimentation. This still sounds like a good thing, right?

Here’s where it goes off the rails- because these doctors can do such a fine job on DNA. they can feasibly find out if your potential baby has a temper, is prone, (in their opinion) to violence, or might develop other qualities that might (again, in their opinion) be detrimental to the human race. Their job is to determine if your potential baby will be a plus or a minus in the great numbers game that is the human race. They want to be the judge of your baby’s potential- or lack thereof.

There have been advocates of Eugenics since the 1920s- it was taught with great fervor in the Universities of the world. People who thought of themselves as “Progressives” openly advocated the study of eugenics as a practical method of moving the evolution of human development forward dramatically. There was just one problem- not enough was known about DNA at the time, so practical study of it was stymied, but there were plenty of advocates, from Charles Lindbergh to Franklin Roosevelt, to Adolph Hitler.

Oh yeah, that’s right, many of the eugenics experiments Hitler’s SS carried out on Jewish prisoners were designed to create a “Master Race”- that is Eugenics at is most basic and cruel form. Because DNA was not understood well at that time, many of the experiments involved “grafting” different anatomical parts onto a living body to see if it would take. The SS would experiment on midgets, and twins, all to find out any data that might help them in their quest. The process and logic was tortured and cruel, and we would, you would think, never condone this barbaric behavior today. You would only be partly right.

Instead, the process can begin in the womb. You have heard that soon you will be able to choose traits for your child, thus having “designer” babies. You can choose to have your baby be blue eyed, blonde haired, all the traits you desire- but there is a dark side to this also- the undesirable traits that your child might have in his genes. Progressives want to weed out these undesirable traits, and might want you to terminate, indeed might have you terminate, by law, your child, so that the Down’s syndrome, cancer, Muscular Dystrophy, whatever might be the deficiency they believe they see, will not have a chance to become part of the human race. It might just be that your child doesn’t have, IN THEIR JUDGEMENT, the potential to be as intelligent as these “Progressives” would like.

So sorry, no baby for you.

The kicker is, they might just prohibit you from having any children, just to make sure that your DNA doesn’t pollute the purity they seek. For example, Sickle- cell Anemia is a killer of proportionately many more Blacks than any other race- getting rid of this would be a good thing, right? Maybe not, if you were the ones told that you were not allowed to have children since your potential children MIGHT get the disease. Now you are banned from having children, all based on a possibility.

Add to this is the very real probability that the insurance companies would use this data to determine if you could be covered by insurance. If you were prone to cancer- say it was a possibility that genetically you MIGHT get cancer, well, they would adjust their coverage accordingly, or deny you coverage altogether. This would be the “business” side of eugenics, and we would pay the cost in not only money, but potential.

Stephen Hawking is a fine example- he would have been killed in the womb, or never been allowed to be conceived, if the judgement was based on his physical condition alone. Yet this man made great strides in our understanding of physics and the cosmos, all while being enormously crippled physically.

The study and application of Eugenics  is a very real thing, people, and this brings up the question that “Progressives” hate to hear- just because you may believe you can play God, does that really mean you should?  Some things should be left to God alone.

Or as “Progressives” like to worship Darwin, leave the cycle of life to Natural Selection.

Tags: database, designer babies, dna, eugenics

Maryland Will Violate Rights to Get DNA

Jan 30, 2008 Political

The Governor of Maryland is proposing that the state allow DNA to be collected from people who have been arrested for a crime but have not yet been convicted. As it stands now, a person must first be convicted before DNA may be collected and this is how it should remain. Scott D. Shellenberger, the state’s attorney for Baltimore County, has written a piece in the Baltimore Sun indicating that the Governor’s proposal should be passed. He states that this legislation could prevent crime and he cites a case where a man raped a woman and then raped a young girl. It turns out this guy had been arrested but not convicted in the past so there was no DNA on file. Shellenberger contends that if we had collected his DNA the first time he would have been identified after the first rape and the young girl would not have been the victim. This is obviously true but it does not negate the fact that collecting the DNA of people who have not been convicted of a crime violates their Constitutional rights. I submit that state’s attorneys failing to do their jobs are more dangerous than not collecting DNA and I will address that later.

People have an expectation of privacy and the Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches. Taking DNA from a person who is presumed innocent until proven guilty is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. In fact, Minnesota’s Court of Appeals held that taking DNA from juveniles and adults who have had a probable cause determination on a charged offense but who have not been convicted violates state and federal constitutional prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures.[1] It is also important to note that nothing would stop the state and its law enforcement agencies from using DNA for DNA dragnets or from deeper analysis to determine what maladies might affect people. Mr. Shellenberger contends that they don’t need to look at all parts of the DNA, just the parts used to identify. Just because they don’t need to does not mean they will not. The Governor will eventually try to force universal health care on us. What would stop the state from passing a law allowing them to use the DNA to determine eligibility or fee schedules or to see if a person would be a liability in a job? Once they have it, they can pass laws to abuse it in any manner they wish.

It is terrible that the young girl was raped. I am willing to bet that the offender had more than a few brushes with the law and was probably incarcerated at one time. It seems that they could have collected what they needed at that time but let’s assume this guy had never been convicted. Should the state be allowed to conduct a search for DNA without probable cause from a person who is presumed innocent? They cannot be collecting the DNA to connect him with the current crime because they have already arrested him which means sufficient evidence existed for the arrest. Therefore, they are trying to collect (and search as determined by our courts) for evidence linking the suspect to other crimes (or for that use in the future) though no probable cause exists for the collection. Attorney Shellenberger is advocating violating the Fourth Amendment in order to catch criminals. It is a shame that the young girl was raped and that others are victims of crime but violating the rights of people to catch them makes the people in our legal system no better than the criminals.

Now, I contend that state’s attorneys are more of a danger than the failure to collect DNA. It is the people who run our legal systems who allow criminals to go free instead of putting them in jail. Shellenberger used the case of the young girl but how about the case of Maryland State Trooper Theodore Wolf? He was the state police officer killed by two men who were out on bond awaiting sentencing after being found guilty of assault and weapons charges (in New York). How about Baltimore City police Detective Troy Lamont Chesley who was shot and killed in a robbery attempt by a 21 year old with at least 17 arrests on his record and who was due in court the day after the murder on a past gun charge? If he had been in jail Chesley would be alive. How many arrests does it take for state’s attorneys to get the picture? Of course judges play into this picture so the entire legal system is to blame.

The recidivism rate for violent offenders is well over 50% and yet state’s attorney’s and judges let these people out of jail all the time. If we kept them in jail we could reduce violent crime by at least 50%. While Mr. Shellenberger is advocating violating our rights perhaps he can tell us why it is that child sex offenders (who have a near 100% recidivism rate) are continually released so that they can sexually abuse and murder young children. One thing is likely in all the cases I cite, the people had already been convicted so their DNA was probably on file and yet it did not prevent them from committing other crimes. What allowed them to do so was a legal system that let them out of jail and state’s attorneys that accept plea deals which put violent people back on the street.

Collecting DNA from people who have not been convicted of a crime is a violation of their rights just as it would be to start collecting DNA from newborns to establish a database for the future. As Americans we have a certain expectation of privacy and we expect that our rights will not be violated. It is unfortunate that the very same state’s attorneys and judges who let people go free when their rights are violated would violate the rights of people presumed innocent in order to do their jobs.

Mr. Shellenberger, the Governor is wrong on this issue and you are wrong to support it. Violating a person’s rights is never appropriate.

If you want to prevent crime how about doing your job?

[1]American Constitution Society

Tags: dna, fourth amendment, legal abuses, rights