Cell Phone Corporations Help Government and Law Enforcement Spy On You

By Susanne Posel
theintelhub.com
July 12, 2012
Your wireless company is tracking you with GPS, recording your phone calls and text messages . . . and they are selling the information they collect to other corporations, nations, governments – anyone willing to pay for the data.
The US government is one of the wireless corporation’s biggest clients. They are collecting yotabytes of data from multiple sources on all American citizens.
Congressman Ed Markey complied a report wherein information from numerous cell phone corporations that showed just how much data law enforcement receives from prominent cell phone carriers.
AT&T, Sprint, Verizon and T-Mobile were requested to hand over personal client data to federal agencies and local law enforcement at an alarming rate.

• 1.3 million = total number of law enforcement requests for “text messages, caller locations and other information in the course of investigations.”
• 116 = average number of requests the tiny Cricket fields each day.
• 700 = average number of requests AT&T fields each day.
• 1,500 = average number of requests Sprint fields each day.
• $8.3 million = the total amount in bills that AT&T sent to law enforcement and government agencies to comply with their requests. (That was up from $2.8 million in 2007.)

READ MORE

From PJ Media: Is Obama a Socialist? An Answer to Milos Forman

Just when I thought I had made a convincing argument that Obama was a politician whose outlook is akin to that of Europe’s left-wing social democrats and that the modern Democratic Party is the equivalent of Europe’s social-democratic parties, along comes director Milos Forman to argue the opposite in the op-ed pages of the New York Times.

Forman, most well-known in this country as the director of One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest and Amadeus, is a Czech émigré who lived in Czechoslovakia from 1932 until 1968, thereby gaining first-hand experience of both Nazi and communist totalitarianism’s opposition to freedom. He presents vivid anecdotes of what it was like to experience the jackboot of the secret police in his native land. He knows first-hand its horrors. Even TV interviews, he learned, had to be scripted, when one was interviewing a leader of the Communist Party or the state.

Read More from PJ Media

Campaign roundup for Marion County Florida

Staff report

Published: Thursday, July 12, 2012 at 8:46 p.m.

Last Modified: Thursday, July 12, 2012 at 8:46 p.m.

Candidate forum set for sheriff, County Commission

Marion County Farm Bureau will host a candidate forum for all County Commission and sheriff candidates at 6:30 p.m. on July 26 at the Marion County Extension Auditorium, 2232 NE Jacksonville Road, Ocala.

All Marion County residents are invited. Questions will focus primarily on agricultural issues.

Firefighters union, FOP endorse Blair for sheriff

The Florida State Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police and the Florida Professional Firefighters have both endorsed Chris Blair for Marion County sheriff.

Citing Blair’s 35 years of law enforcement experience, the Fraternal Order of Police expressed confidence in a statement that Blair will lead the Marion County Sheriff’s Office “with confidence and integrity.

“He will bring focus and solid leadership for all the citizens of Marion County who demand quality law enforcement services,” said the statement, penned by James W. Preston, president of the FOP.

Blair also picked up the endorsement of the Florida Professional Firefighters union.

“We believe that you will honorably serve the citizens of Marion County and the interests of the men and women employed in the Fire and Emergency Medical Services, who have made the protection of life and property their life’s work,” wrote Gary Rainey, president and CEO of the organization.

Family group, Bachmann, Paul Ryan endorse Stearns

The Family Research Council Action PAC endorsed Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Ocala, for Florida’s 3rd Congressional District on July 3. 

Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council Action, issued the following statement about Stearns:

“Congressman Cliff Stearns is a leading advocate for the family and the unborn in Congress. We are particularly encouraged by Representative Stearns’ willingness to fight for the unborn by opening a congressional investigation into the illicit activities of Planned Parenthood. We will continue to work with Congressman Stearns as he exposes the truth about this organization.”

Stearns also picked up the endorsements of two high-profile members of Congress, Michelle Bachmann, R-Minnesota, and Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin.

“Cliff Stearns was one of the first members from Florida to embrace the tea party, speaking at our rallies in D.C. and in Florida,” Bachmann said in a statement. “He is steadfast in supporting the tea party agenda and I endorse his election in Congressional District 3.”

Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, was equally enthusiastic in his support of Stearns.

“Cliff Stearns supported my budget in every session of Congress and believes in balancing our budget and restoring fiscal responsibility in Washington. I’m proud to endorse Cliff Stearns for election in Congressional District 3.”

Sept. 11 support group comes out for Jett

Third Congressional District candidate James Jett recently received the endorsement of a foundation that supports police, firefighters and other first responders who were injured as a direct result of their rescue, recovery and cleanup efforts at the World Trade Center site following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

John Feal, who runs the Fealgood Foundation, made the endorsement in a YouTube video saying, “Jett is a far better choice than Rep. Cliff Stearns,” another candidate for the newly drawn, open seat. While throwing his support to Jett, Feal also delivered a strong rebuke to Stearns of Ocala, who crafted legislation that requires the names of police officers, construction workers, firefighters and other personnel who are eligible for the health benefits be run through a terrorism watch list.

The greatest Roller Coaster ride I ever saw: Casey Batchelor Zoo girl

Room for Debate: Fixing the U.S. Constitution

by Mike Rappaport

Over at the New York Times Room for Debate feature, the topic is: If the U.S. Constitution were being written today, what would you omit, add or clarify?  My own contribution is to end Congress's monopoly on proposing constitutional amendments by fixing the convention method of amending the Constitution.  It currently does not work, because state legislatures fear a runaway convention.  I wrote about this issue at the Liberty Law Forum, which also included a couple of responses.

The Room for Debate topic included a variety of interesting answers.  One was by Randy Barnett, who proposed to amend Congress's Commerce Clause authority so that it "shall not be construed to include the power to regulate or prohibit any activity that is confined within a single state regardless of its effects outside the state."  This is definitely a good start, but I would want to add some checks on Congress using other powers (such as the Taxing Power and the Power to Enforce the Law of Nations).

Jamal Greene also proposed 18 year term limits for Supreme Court Justices, which I also support.

David Cohen: State Restrictions on Non-Citizens' Gun Rights

by Michael Ramsey

David S. Cohen (Drexel University -- Earle Mack School of Law) has posted McDonald's Paradoxical Legacy: State Restrictions on Non-Citizens' Gun Rights (Maryland Law Review, vol. 71, p. 1219, 2012) on SSRN.  Here is the abstract:

Relying on the Supreme Court's recent decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts recently ruled that the Second Amendment's individual right to possess a gun for self-defense, which the Supreme Court found in Heller and incorporated against the states in McDonald, protected a lawful permanent resident's right to bear arms and that the Massachusetts statutory scheme with respect to non-citizens violated that right. The district court found that the Second Amendment applies to non-citizens because the court read McDonald as incorporating the Second Amendment through the Due Process Clause, which protects against states infringing on the rights of "persons." However, the court erred when it ignored the voting paradox within the McDonald decision. This Essay attempts to resolve McDonald's paradox in the context of non-citizens by applying a modification of the familiar rule for dealing with fragmented Supreme Court opinions. Under that modified rule, there is no basis for finding that the Second Amendment, applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, protects non-citizens from gun restrictions. There may be other reasons to find that states cannot restrict non-citizens from owning or possessing firearms, but based on Supreme Court precedent, incorporation of a fundamental right is not one of them.

In case it isn't clear from the abstract, the problem is that only four Justices in McDonald thought the right to bear arms was incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause; four thought it was not incorporated at all, and Justice Thomas, on originalist grounds, thought it was incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment's privileges or immunities clause.  But the privileges or immunties clause, unlike the due process clause, applies only to "citizens of the United States" -- hence the difficulty identified in the article.
For originalists who agree with Justice Thomas that the privileges or immunities clause is the best source of incorporation this issue may be a broader problem than just the paradox of McDonald.  Does that position commit one to the proposition that non-citizens have very few rights against the states (e.g., no free speech rights, no right against cruel and unusual punishment)?  And is there Fourteenth-Amendment-era evidence that this is how the Amendment was understood?

Did you know Vice President Joe Biden sat in Rev. Wright church just like Obama? (Video)

Adler on Constitutional Avoidance, the Chief Justice, and Justice Ginsburg

Posted on July 12, 2012 7:25 pm by Rick Hasen

Jonathan Adler:

As I noted in this post, I think the pattern of the Chief Justice’s behavior is a product of multiple elements within his jurisprudence. First, I think he genuinely believes in constitutional avoidance as an important principle. He also believes that the Court should strive to bring clarity and concreteness. As a consequence he dislikes splintered holdings. Thus, in NAMUDNO he was willing to adopt a strained reading of the statute on avoidance grounds because other justices were willing to go along. Similarly in FIB, while other justices did not join the portion of his opinion on avoidance, a majority did embrace his conclusion that the mandate could be viewed as a valid exercise of the taxing power. In Citizens United, on the other hand, embracing constitutional avoidance would have required the Chief to adopt a statutory interpretation that was rejected by all eight other justices. Thus, he would have written a controlling opinion based on a premise that every other justice rejected. Yet, according to Jeffrey Toobin’s reporting, he was prepared to go the narrow, avoidance-based route when it appeared other justices would agree.
While Prof. Hasen puzzles over the behavior of the Chief, I think it is the approach to avoidance taken by other justices that is harder to explain. Chief Justice Roberts appears ready to rely on avoidance quite aggressively to avoid invalidating statutes, but not at the expense of fracturing the Court. But what about, say, Justice Ginsburg? She wouldn’t join the Chief to adopt a narrow holding in Citizens United that would have saved the statute, at the expense of a holding with which she would have disagreed, but was in NAMUDNO. Is there a theory to explain this?

I agree that if the Chief Justice offered to use the avoidance canon in Citizens United and the liberals refused to go along, that would indeed be puzzling.  But for this reason I am unconvinced that on this point Toobin’s description is accurate.

The Mosaic Theory of the Fourth Amendment

Orin S. Kerr

George Washington University - Law School

April 1, 2012

Michigan Law Review, Vol. 110, Forthcoming 2012
GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 2012-47
GWU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2012-47

Abstract:     
In the Supreme Court’s recent decision on GPS surveillance, United States v. Jones (2012), five Justices authored or joined concurring opinions that applied a new approach to interpreting Fourth Amendment protection. Before Jones, Fourth Amendment decisions have always evaluated each step of an investigation individually. Jones introduced what we might call a “mosaic theory” of the Fourth Amendment, by which courts evaluate a collective sequence of government activity as an aggregated whole to consider whether the sequence amounts to a search.

This article considers the implications of a mosaic theory of the Fourth Amendment. It explores the choices and puzzles that a mosaic theory would raise, and it analyzes the merits of the proposed new method of Fourth Amendment analysis. The article makes three major points. First, the mosaic theory represents a dramatic departure from the basic building block of existing Fourth Amendment doctrine. Second, adopting the mosaic theory would require courts to answer a long list of novel and challenging questions. Third, courts should reject the theory and retain the traditional sequential approach to Fourth Amendment analysis. The mosaic approach reflects legitimate concerns, but implementing it would be exceedingly difficult in light of rapid technological change. Courts can better respond to the concerns animating the mosaic theory within the traditional parameters of the sequential approach to Fourth Amendment analysis.

Download Here:

60 Days In Prison And A $12,180 Fine For Hosting A Home Bible Study In Arizona

Michael Snyder
The American Dream
Monday, July 9, 2012
The war on home Bible studies and house churches is heating up again. Down in Phoenix, Arizona a man has been sentenced to 60 days in prison and has been fined $12,180 for hosting a Bible study in his home.

Since 2005, Michael Salman and his wife have been hosting gatherings of about 15 or 20 people where they share food, fellowship and discuss the Bible. Unfortunately, that kind of thing is against the law in Phoenix, Arizona apparently. At one point, nearly a dozen armed police officers raided their home and “evidence” of their “crimes” was gathered. Michael Salman was found guilty of 67 “code violations”, and now he is going to be ripped away from his family and put in prison for two months. In addition, the assistant city prosecutor is asking the court to “revoke his probation and convert it into a 2 1/2 year jail sentence since he continues to hold worship gatherings on his property despite court orders.” This kind of case has the potential to have a huge “chilling effect” on home gatherings of all kinds all over the United States.

Read More

Opposition Research News 7.12.12

Here are today's news events for opposition research:

On Citizens United's true impact in 2012
By Sam Wang
Each race could get $2 million to set up a mini-think tank, opposition
research, and a viral campaign. That would buy a lot of local messaging and
mudslinging. And a lot of robocalls. By modern standards, $25 million is
not a lot of money.
<http://election.princeton.edu/2012/07/11/on-citizens-uniteds-true-impact-in-2012/>

 COMPROMISED INTEL: Secret Democratic Political Research Files for ...
RedState
Media Trackers, a conservative investigative watchdog group, discovered
nearly three-dozen Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee opposition
research ...
<http://www.redstate.com/briansikma/2012/07/12/compromised-intel-secret-democratic-political-research-files-for-twelve-2012-match-ups-found-via-google/>

 Curmudgeon Central: Today's lesson at a public high school ...
By manjushri924
... criticizing specific liberals): the teacher in Virginia who enlisted
his 8th-grade class to do opposition research for Obama, the North Carolina
teacher who went ballistic in an incoherent pro-Obama rant, the Montana
principal who disinvited ...
<http://manjushri924.blogspot.com/2012/07/todays-lesson-at-public-high-school.html>

Florida Chamber of Commerce Unveils Legislative Endorsements

By: Kevin Derby | Posted: July 12, 2012 3:55 AM

Florida Chamber Executive VP David HartHide

The Florida Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday unveiled its endorsements in legislative races across the Sunshine State, backing candidates based on their positions on how to bring

jobs to the state and improve a continuing sluggish economy.

"To create a stable and predictable business climate that helps to create private-sector jobs and grow our state’s economy, we need a Legislature that focuses on free-enterprise principles and solutions,” said David Hart, the executive vice president of the Florida Chamber, on Wednesday. “We are pleased to support these pro-jobs, pro-business candidates and look forward to mobilizing our employer members and local Chamber of Commerce partners as well as their more than 3 million employees with far-reaching grassroots advocacy efforts.”

 

READ MORE

USDA Uses Spanish ‘Soaps’ To Push Food Stamps

From the Daily Caller:

USDA uses Spanish soap operas to push food stamps among non-citizens, citizens
By Caroline May | 07/12/2012
The government has been targeting Spanish speakers with radio “novelas” promoting food stamp usage as part of a stated mission to increase participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamps.
Each novela, comprising a 10-part series called “PARQUE ALEGRIA,” or “HOPE PARK,” presents a semi-dramatic scenario involving characters convincing others to get on food stamps, or explaining how much healthier it is to be on food stamps.
The majority of the episodes end with the announcer encouraging the listener to tune in again to see if the skeptic applies for benefits or learns to understand the importance of food stamps to their health.
“Will Claudia convince Ramon to apply for SNAP?” the announcer exclaims at the end of a standard episode titled “The Poet,” “Don’t miss our next episode of ‘HOPE PARK.’”…
While the United States Department of Agriculture encourages its outreach partners not to stereotype SNAP applicants, the agency’s use of novelas is notable. The USDA is not promoting an equivalent English-language drama series and telenovelas are a popular form of entertainment in Latin American countries and a culturally relevant way to appeal to potential applicants.

For the record, Spanish soap operas are wildly popular. Far more so than ‘Anglo’ soaps ever were.

The radio novelas are available on USDA’s website for state and local outreach partners to use as public service announcements…
In addition to the Spanish-language outreach, the USDA is also pushing to get non-citizens enrolled in the program. The radio novelas overcome one of the hurdles the agency has identified as hampering participation: “lack of knowledge” about the program.
“Although many non-citizens are now eligible for SNAP, SNAP participation has been historically low among eligible non-citizen households,” reads a 2011 Guidance on Non-Citizen Eligibility. “In 2008, the participation rate for non-citizens was 51% and the rate for citizen children living with non-citizen adults was 55% as compared to the national participation rate of 67% among all eligible individuals.”
While USDA is targeting non-citizens for SNAP participation, the agency stresses that illegals are not eligible for benefits…

How would anyone know whether the applicants are legal or not. The USDA can’t ask for photo IDs. That would be racist.

Robert Rector, the Heritage Foundation’s senior research fellow on welfare and family issues, noted that while illegals are officially barred from participation, the legal children of illegals are eligible for benefits, creating mixed households with the potential to be intertwined with benefit programs.
Rector added that promotions such the radio novelas are part of the current process of assimilation into American culture. “The culture [non-citizens] are assimilating into is the culture of welfare dependence,” Rector explained to TheDC…

Which, of course, is the plan. The Democrats figure that once they get someone dependent on welfare, they are theirs for life.

In the 1970s, one in 50 Americans were on food stamps – today that figure is one in seven. SNAP spending has doubled since 2008 and quadrupled since 2001.

There is no denying that Democrats; plan is working. In a sane world, they would be universally castigated.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

Shocking Video: What are we in Nazi Germany?? This government is out of Control!!!

Thanks to Drink Your Koolaid for the video


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
-The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution

With local, state and DHS checkpoints randomly popping up all over America many of our citizens believe that we must comply with what more often than not amounts to unlawful requests and orders from law enforcement officials.

While driving through California, Steven Anderson came upon three such checkpoints and he chose not to play ball with officers who asked him, among other things, to prove his citizenship, prove his identity and pull over for further inspection and questioning.

Read the rest of the story

Great Article: Rick Hasen of The Election Law Blog discusses 3 major Scotus rulings

Professor Hasen asks: 

Was Chief Justice Roberts Most Unprincipled in Applying the Doctrine of Constitutional Avoidance in the Health Care Case, in NAMUDNO (the Voting Rights Act Case) or in Citizens United?

 

Posted on July 11, 2012 9:57 pm by Rick Hasen

In my initial post on the health care decision, I stated “Once again, the Chief has manipulated the doctrine of constitutional avoidance to do what he wanted to do in a high profile, important case.”
I hadn’t had a chance to go back and expand on this issue since I wrote that, but Nicholas Rosenkranz’s very smart post has prompted me to do so.  Rosenkranz persuasively argues that Roberts’ use of the avoidance canon in the health care case is not your typical application of the canon: rather than apply it, as is typically done, to a textual ambiguity (such as to the question whether a ban on “vehicles” in the park covers bicycles), the Chief applies to to alternative “constitutional characterizations” of an unambiguous law (the health care mandate is either an unconstitutional “penalty” or a constitutional “tax”).

As poor as this analysis is as an application of the avoidance canon, CJ Roberts engaged in two worse applications of the canon in recent years.  In the NAMUDNO case, considering the constitutionality of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the Court read the Voting Rights Act to allow for a utility district to “bail out” from coverage under the  Act, an interpretation that the Chief Justice advanced to avoid the constitutional question whether section 5 was unconstitutional.  Unlike the health care case, in NAMUDNO the Court did confront a question about textual meaning (did the Voting Rights Act give the utility district a chance to “bail out” from coverage of the act?).  But the unprincipled part of the decision was that the textual meaning advanced by the Chief Justice was wholly unsupported by the text or the legislative history of the Act.  I devote about half of my article, Constitutional Avoidance and Anti-Avoidance by the Roberts Court, 2009 Supreme Court Review 181, to demonstrating the truth of this assertion. Below the fold, I’ve included an excerpt from my article explaining why the district court so thoroughly rejected the argument that it should avoid the constitutional question by interpreting the Act to allow the utility district to bail out.

 READ THE REST OF THE POST AT THE ELECTION BLOG

Obama Sinks to Historic Lows Among Blue-Collar Men

By Ronald Brownstein July 11, 2012 | 6:00 p.m. The new Quinnipiac University and ABC/Washington Post national surveys out this week converge on one key conclusion: as the election nears, President Obama is sinking to historic lows among the group most consistently hostile to him. Throughout his career on the national stage, Obama has struggled among white men without a college education. But in these latest surveys, he has fallen to a level of support among them lower than any Democratic nominee has attracted in any election since 1980, according to an upcoming National Journal analysis of exit polls from presidential elections. Though pollsters at each organization caution that the margins of error are substantial when looking at subgroups such as this, each poll shows erosion within that margin of error for Obama with these working-class white men. The new Quinnipiac poll shows Obama attracting just 29 percent of non-college white men, down from 32 percent in their most recent national survey in April, according to figures provided by Douglas Schwartz, April Radocchio and Ralph Hansen of Quinnipiac. The ABC/Washington Post survey found Obama drawing just 28 percent of non-college white men, down from 34 percent in their May survey, according to figures provided by ABC Pollster Gary Langer. Romney drew 56 percent of the non-college white men in Quinnipiac and 65 percent in the ABC/Washington Post survey. READ MORE

A Politician’s Guide to Social Media (VIDEO)

Video: The Supreme Court year in Review 2011-2012

 I watched this great video today on CSPAN reviewing the Supreme Courts' major rulings over the past year.  The panel gave an outstanding review on perhaps one of the most important SCOTUS terms in history.

Watch it below:

 http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Court2011

THE HERITAGE

FOUNDATION
Scholars & Scribes Review the Rulings: The Supreme Court's 2011-2012 Term

Panel I (10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.) Hon. Donald Verrilli, Jr., Solicitor General of the United States Richard ..  Solicitor General of the United States Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, New York University Law School Michael Carvin, Partner, Jones Day and Oral Advocate for NFIB in the ObamaCare Case Edwin Meese III, Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow, The Heritage Foundation (Moderator)

Florida v. Jardines: How is the Supreme Court going to clean up its drug sniffing dog mess?

posted by Erica Goldberg

Briefs and amicus briefs are being filed in a Supreme Court case that could have a major impact on Fourth Amendment jurisprudence in order to resolve a major mess. The question in Florida v. Jardines is whether a police officer can use a drug sniffing dog at someone’s door to determine if there is contraband inside the home. The mess is a result of the tension between the Supreme Court’s holdings, the reality of using drug sniffing dogs, and our intuitions about privacy.

First, the Supreme Court has held that, when performed in a minimally invasive way, like at an airport or outside one’s car, the use of a drug detection dog is not considered a “search” that implicates the Fourth Amendment or requires any suspicion. This is largely due to the fact that the use of drug sniffing dogs is considered a “binary search,” which either detects or fails to detect the presence of contraband. Because the Court has held in no uncertain terms that we have no legitimate expectation of privacy in contraband (I’m not as certain about this proposition when considering the history and purpose of the Fourth Amendment), a device or dog that detects only whether contraband is present or absent does not invade any expectations of privacy.

However, as Professor Leslie Shoebotham’s amici curiae brief (detailed on EvidenceProf blog) argues, drug sniffing dogs often detect the presence of  molecular compounds found in both contraband and innocent items, such as vinegar or soap.  Another way of framing this is that drug sniffing dogs are not binary because of their tendency to false positive. And there we have Mess Number 1: the Supreme Court’s drug sniffing dog jurisprudence is based on the false idea that the use of a drug sniffing dog is not a search because it detects only the presence or absence of contraband. It is unlikely that the Supreme Court in Jardines will reverse its firmly established position that the use of drug sniffing dogs is not a search. Instead, the Court will likely rely on the holding that a dog binarily alerts or does not alert to the presence of contraband, but will treat as a separate question whether a dog is accurate enough in its alert to give the police probable cause to obtain a warrant and conduct a full search of the home.

Thus, Mess Number 1 is more easily resolved than Mess Number 2, which concerns our intuition. It FEELS wrong for the police to march up to random homes and sniff doors with a drug detection dog. Yet, if the use of a drug detection dog does not actually infringe upon privacy rights or require any suspicion, that’s exactly what could happen. How is the Supreme Court going to distinguish a car or a suitcase from a house if the use of a dog is not a search at all?

Read the rest of this post »

PIC of the day: I love the 2nd Amendment