Random Ramblings from the Resident Raptor.
Insight for your “Journey across the Sky”
A View from the Nest www.eagleviews.org
Decent people will live in the land. People of integrity will remain in it. But wicked people will be cut off from the land and treacherous people will be torn from it. Prov 2:21-22 (GW)
Several centuries before Christ, Alexander the Great came out of Macedonia and Greece to conquer the Mediterranean world. On one of his campaigns, Alexander received a message that one of his soldiers had been continually, and seriously, misbehaving and thereby shedding a bad light on the character of all the Greek troops. And what made it even worse was that this soldier’s name was also Alexander. When the commander learned this, he sent word that he wanted to talk to the errant soldier in person. When the young man arrived at the tent of Alexander the Great, the commander asked him, “What is your name?” The reply came back, “Alexander, sir.” The commander looked him straight in the eye and said forcefully, “Soldier, either change your behavior or change your name.” This story has a lesson for each of us. When we call ourselves Americans, we are identifying with this nation and the principles upon which it was established. When we swear allegiance to the flag we stand with others to defend the Constitution of these United States of America. We are being . identified with the United States of America. Is your behavior compatible with that name and with the symbol that shows that you are an American?
Arizona is soon to enact what some say is an ill-conceived immigration enforcement act. This statute does not affect other states, nor is it enforceable across state lines. The law strictly forbids police officers to ask an individual for identification unless the officers encounter a suspect while in the course of enforcing another infraction of the state statutes. For an example; a person walking down the street of downtown Phoenix should not, and can not, be detained by police and questioned to produce identification unless that person has committed a crime. Seems to me the bill is reasonably restrictive.
Compare that to the law that requires identification when purchasing cough medicine at the local Target. Which seems to be more reasonable to you? To be asked to produce identification after being stopped for breaking a law or being asked to produce ID to buy over-the-counter cough medicine? If you answered the cough medicine then you must be a liberal democrat set on demonizing legitimate behavior in order to legitimize illegitimate behavior.
Another example would be the mandatory, random drug tests administered to commercial drivers. Isn’t this an invasion of one’s privacy also? Is there proof or suspicion that the person being tested is using an illegal substance? If there is no reasonable suspicion that they are under the influence of drugs or alcohol then why are they being required to submit to a random test? Shouldn’t people who show signs of the possibility of being under the influence have to take a random drug test? Why should someone who has never used drugs or alcohol have to be subjected to this form of interrogation? Why aren’t the picket sign carrying activists protesting this injustice? Or are only those who actually commit a crime entitled to political action?
Why must law-abiding citizens be treated like suspects when there is NO Reasonable suspicion that these citizens are doing anything illegal? Well that is the rationale being used to justify opposition to the Arizona immigration enforcement bill.
Constantly we hear the din of political activists demonizing the Arizona bill for profiling illegal aliens and yet everyday many law-abiding, natural-born, citizens are asked to produce their identification. If it is reasonable that I should have to show my photo ID to the cashier at Target to purchase over-the-counter cough medicine, then it is just as reasonable for a suspected immigrate to be asked to present ID to a police officer. I wonder what illegal aliens produce when they buy cough medicine at their local Target?
Continue reading “May I See Your Identification?” →
A Planned Parenthood clinic in Kennewick, Washington, is accused of keeping a 14-year-old girl, who was impregnated by a 20-year-old man, from her father and police.
In the Seattle incident, the clinic worker argued with the father and police that the girl was emancipated upon having sex and becoming pregnant. But current law considers the girl’s pregnancy the result of statutory rape, which awards legal responsibility to her father.
You must be logged in to post a comment.