... is pretty much what Tom Tancredo's new Anti-Jihad legislation is about. Yes, it is absolutely chilling [as you can find digested in Fausta's Blog ] that Sharia Courts are now operating in the UK with full judicial sanction to handle everything from financial disputes to divorces to domestic abuse. Tancredo wants to prevent that by making the advocacy of Sharia law in the US a deportable offense for non-citizen Muslims. What a great idea, Tom! We'll fight a radical Islamic idea that would strike at the very foundations of our Republic with the designation of certain political ideas as being so unsuitable for political discourse that we will use the power of the State to deport those who don't think correctly. That will certainly save a country founded on the rights and freedoms contained in the Bill of Rights.

This one from The Liberty Papers : A state legislator in Tennessee opens a new front in the drunk driving wars: Defense attorneys would be banned from advertising their expertise with drunken driving cases under a bill advancing in the Senate. Sen. Rosalind Kurita, a Clarksville Democrat, successfully added the provision to a bill that would create an online registry of repeat DUI offenders in Tennessee. Kurita says officials have a hard enough time convicting drunken drivers without lawyers advertising their expertise in the field and offering discounts to DUI defendants.

...there is no such thing as safe blogging. A few days ago Delaware Liberal asked what are the three biggest threats to our nation and why do we have so many problems? I can finally answer them with a clear head that the single greatest threat to the United States is the rise of corporate " personhood " that subjects the individual to its arbitrary social controls. Why? It is an issue of trust with and between the classes and as Delaware Liberal aptly noted, they have never been further apart in the history of the nation . Well let's start with blogging. It is apparent to me that there is no such thing as being protected or your privacy assured as a blogger or writer when an employer can fire you for anything you do or do not say off hours . And for some there are very real consequences of venting in public. Despite the first amendment social controls excerpt much more effect through corporations and define life within narrowly defined and arbitrary limits than government...

. . . which is not exactly a big surprise. Here's the gist of the inane editorial arguing that the Feds should be allowed to collect DNA from everyone arrested for a Federal crime : DNA is simply the 21st-century version of 19th-century fingerprint technology. In addition, DNA from both a victim and the accused can be invaluable proof of whether a charged or convicted suspect is actually guilty of a crime. Fingerprints can't do that. It is easy to see where civil libertarians can be wary of government compilation of such data. But the good that it can do in law enforcement overrides the fears of potential abuse. Besides, creating a database of everyone's personal health profile would be complicated, extremely time-consuming and expensive. The new federal rules for use of DNA apply only to those arrested or convicted of federal crimes. But 13 states, with California soon to join, have already agreed to start collecting DNA information for those arrested or convicted of stat...