Wednesday, August 26, 2015
Thursday, August 6, 2015
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California restored voting rights Tuesday to tens of thousands of criminals serving sentences under community supervision, reversing a decision by a state official that they could not participate in elections.
Secretary of State Alex Padilla announced the settlement between the state and the American Civil Liberties Union of California, which sued on behalf of nearly 60,000 convicts who became ineligible to vote when then Secretary of State Debra Bowen determined in 2014 that community supervision was equivalent to parole.
Her decision stemmed from a 2011 realignment of the state's criminal justice law that aims to reduce overcrowding in state prisons by sending people convicted of less serious crimes to county jails or alternative treatment programs.
A judge later overturned Bowen's policy, stating that community supervision and parole are different.
Bowen's office appealed the decision, but Padilla, a fellow Democrat, decided to let the court ruling stand.
The secretary of state's office found the lower court's opinion thorough and convincing, said Padilla spokesman Steve Reyes. He added it is Padilla's position to err on the side of maintaining voting rights in contentious cases.
"When there are questions, we're in favor of keeping the right to vote intact," Reyes said.
Tuesday's announcement was timed to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Voting Rights Act.
"Secretary of State Padilla is bucking a national trend in which voting rights are under attack," Lori Shellenberger, director of the ACLU of California's Voting Rights Project, said in a statement. "We are thrilled that this administration has effectively said 'no' to Jim Crow in California."
Still, California's ruling is a narrow one and unlikely to establish precedent, said Michael Risher, an attorney with the ACLU of Northern California.
Earlier this summer, Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican, vetoed a bill that would have extended the right to vote to roughly 40,000 convicts on probation or parole.
Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Monday, August 3, 2015
The governing body of the Boy Scouts of America has voted to allow gay leaders into their ranks. Many see that decision as wise as letting Michael Moore guard your Oreos.
Former Secretary of Defense and current Boy Scout President Robert Gates said:
“For far too long this issue has divided and distracted us. Now it’s time to unite behind our shared belief in the extraordinary power of Scouting to be a force for good in a community and in the lives of its youth members.”
Yes, let’s all join hands in the big circle of unity! Who wants to hold hands with our new leader, Lance? Isn’t this Gates guy the one who got rid of the Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell military policy? It seems getting gay people into organizations that functioned perfectly without them is his only raison d’etre.
AWD estimates the decision affects approximately ten homosexuals who, for what reasons we can only imagine, want to camp out with young boys. What could go wrong? Well, it will and the Boy Scouts will die a quick death once the lawsuits from boys molested by leaders start rolling in. And they will.
The decision to allow gay leaders is not being forced on religious organizations with BSA organizations who have moral issues with homosexuality. So just wait until the First Baptist Church of Lizard Lick with 50 parishioners is hit with a lawsuit from the ACLU for not letting the town girly-man take their boys on an overnighter to see how fast scouting folds. Church scouting groups will immediately end their relationship with the Boy Scouts of America forever.
Why do gays force their way into an organization where they are not wanted or welcome? If gay people want to be Scouts, why don’t they start their own Gay Scouting organization? That way they could do whatever they want without restraint. The reason? Because they can. The second reason is they would have nearly zero boy scouts. Who would let their kid participate in scouting with a gay leader?
Starting their own scouting organization is exactly what the Mormon Church is about to do! The LDS Church is the largest supporter of the Boy Scouts of America and pays a large percentage of Boy Scouts of America’s costs. Mormons will not allow gays to be involved in scouting as they see homosexuality as a moral sin. Scouting will crumble in a few short years after the Mormons go their own way.
I’m sad but not surprised that this venerable organization folded to the Gay Gestapo. It’s the way this country is devolving into a nation of cowards where it’s rare to find anyone who will defend tradition and beliefs. The 97% of of heterosexuals in America does not seem capable of standing up to the 3% who are homosexuals.
Again, nobody is stopping gays from being scouts. Let them form their own Gay Scouts of America the way the Mormons will soon form their Mormon Scouts of America. Who cares? But that’s not the way fascists work.
Thursday, July 9, 2015
The “sanctuary city” movement that gave illegal aliens permission to rob, rape, and murder Americans is the product of decades of concerted collusion by radical groups like the ACLU to get cities to pledge to violate laws that protect U.S. national security.
Cheered on by the Left, sanctuary cities frustrate immigration enforcement efforts and shield illegal aliens from federal officials as a matter of policy.
The Obama administration is fine with that. President Obama has made America a sanctuary country, rolling out the red carpet for illegal aliens, especially those from Mexico, to come to the U.S. and depress labor markets while they suck the nation’s welfare state dry.
What these traitor cities do is itself unlawful, Hans von Spakovsky notes, but they get away with it because President Obama is determined to dismantle America’s immigration system in order to flood the country with desperately poor, illiterate peasants from the Third World.
Obama wants to do this in order to wash away the rule of law tainted as it is by Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence, along with whatever stubborn residue of American Revolutionary enlightenment that remains deeply embedded within the tissues of our culture and free institutions.
Americans are being attacked and killed by illegal aliens in perhaps more than 200 so-called sanctuary cities across the country because subversive left-wing advocates like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have been working to undermine the nation’s borders and immigration laws. Throughout this long leftist campaign those who demand that federal immigration laws be enforced have been smeared as racist and lacking in compassion. It’s not fair that illegal aliens aren’t given the same rights as U.S. citizens, they whine, mindlessly repeating vapid slogans like “no one is illegal.”
Wednesday, July 8, 2015
I reported last year that many of Massachusetts’s SWAT teams were claiming to be private corporations that were immune from public records requests. Last month, the Northeastern Massachusetts Law Enforcement Council (NEMLEC), the corporation that overseas that region’s SWAT teams, settled with the Massachusetts ACLU and released records related to how SWAT teams are used. A number of publications have since been sifting through the documents.
The results are similar to what we found in other situations in which these records have been made public — the widespread use of the kind of militarized tactics, weapons, and gear that was once reserved only for emergency situations, when lives were at immediate risk. Most notable: Of the 21 times a NEMLEC SWAT team was deployed to serve a search warrant for drugs, the SWAT team reported finding drugs just five times.
Just one of the 79 SWAT deployments in 2012-14 — assistance with the search for the perpetrators of the Boston Marathon bombing — involved terrorism. Other SWAT actions during that period show no hostage situations, no active shooters and only 10 non-suicidal barricaded subjects.About half of the remaining cases involved everyday and often mundane police activity, including executing warrants, dealing with expected rioting after a 2013 Red Sox World Series game, and providing security for a Dalai Lama lecture. In one mission, 15 SWAT team members roved through Salem’s Halloween celebrations looking out for unspecified “gang-related activity,” but were warned by their commanders to maintain a “professional demeanor” given that “everyone has a camera phone and you don’t want to be on YouTube or the news later.”The remaining 37 SWAT actions were either proactive drug operations, initiated by local police, or suicide response operations . . .More than half of the SWAT teams’ drug operations were initiated at 3:30 or 4:00 a.m. Furthermore, of the 22 narcotics operations detailed in the documents over the two years, 14 included warrants authorizing SWAT teams to conduct “no knock” raids and four authorizing “knock and announce” raids — both of which are forceful entry options that have made national headlines for the accidental killings, injuries, and trauma they can produce.
Friday, September 13, 2013
Thursday, September 5, 2013
Monday, October 29, 2012
Oct 25, 2012 169 Comments Pat Dollard
Excerpted from THE HILL: United Nations election monitors from Europe and central Asia will be at polling places around the U.S. looking for voter suppression activities by conservative groups, a concern raised by civil rights groups during a meeting this week. The intervention has drawn criticism from a prominent conservative-leaning group combating election fraud. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), a United Nations partner on democratization and human rights projects, will deploy 44 observers around the county on Election Day to monitor an array of activities, including potential disputes at polling places.
Liberal-leaning civil rights groups met with representatives from the OSCE this week to raise their fears about what they say are systematic efforts to suppress minority voters likely to vote for President Obama.
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the NAACP and the ACLU, among other groups, warned this month in a letter to Daan Everts, a senior official with OSCE, of “a coordinated political effort to disenfranchise millions of Americans — particularly traditionally disenfranchised groups like minorities.”
The request for foreign monitoring of election sites drew a strong rebuke from Catherine Engelbrecht, founder and president of True the Vote, a conservative-leaning group seeking to crack down on election fraud.
Monday, October 1, 2012
The instances of the Justice Department monitoring electronic communications such as phone calls, emails and even social network updates without a warrant has increased by as much as 60 percent in recent years, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.
The surveillance tools – known as either a “pen register” or a “trap and trace” – record such information as phone numbers and the time and length of calls, but not the content.
Orders to track phone calls increased 60 percent -- from 23,535 in 2009 to 37,616 in 2011 -- according to Justice Department documents, including ones recently acquired by the ACLU.
Orders to track emails and computer network data increased by 361 percent over the same period, though the number of orders was less compared to those for phone calls.
The ACLU argues the legal standard to use the devices is lower because they don’t capture content -- unlike wiretaps, which require a judge’s permission. And the government needs submit only to a court a certification stating that it seeks information relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.
However, the Justice Department said that in “every instance cited” in the documents a federal judge authorized the law enforcement activity.
“As criminals increasingly use new and more sophisticated technologies, the use of orders issued by a judge and explicitly authorized by Congress to obtain non-content information is essential for federal law enforcement officials to carry out their duty to protect the public and investigate violations of federal laws," the agency said in a statement.
Still, Naomi Gilens, writing in a blog for the ACLU, says the information in the documents “underscore the importance of regulating and overseeing the government’s surveillance power.”
She also calls both devices “powerfully invasive surveillance tools” and points out that nowadays no special equipment is needed to record such information because it is part of phone companies’ call-routing hardware, unlike 20 years ago.
Via: Fox News
Sunday, September 23, 2012
President Barack Obama is about to release or transfer 55 Gitmo prisoners, despite reports that the Libyan believed to be behind the killing of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens was a former Guantanamo inmate transferred to Libyan custody.
A portion of the website of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration ( SAMHSA ) was apparently hacked as long as two m...
How big is the federal government? So big, it has lost count of just how many department and agencies it has, according to a federal w...
SEATTLE — Seattle City Councilmember-elect Kshama Sawant told Boeing machinists her idea of a radical option, should their jobs be mo...
What better place for “Dr.” Beverly Scott’s next soft landing than the National Transportation Safety Board? The NTSB has as its m...
Out-of-control spending by Congress and the Obama Administration has once again maxed out the latest debt limit—a nearly $17 trillion burd...
The IRS fined more than 7.5 million Americans who didn’t have health insurance in 2014, even as Obamacare subsidies flowed to people who d...
I just had lunch with a friend who is a manager of a David’s Bridal. She told me all store managers received an email from the CEO of Dav...
Reid Wilson shares a map from National Media, a Republican ad-buying firm, depicting a recent television event: “Using data from Rentrak, ...
It’s been a while since we’ve had an incumbent President lose an election. In fact, it was 20 years ago, when George H. W. Bush lost in a...
Most Americans hold either liberal or conservative positions on most matters. In many instances, however, they would be hard pressed to ex...