Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Department Of Justice Taunts ACLU

January 18, 2013 by  

Department Of Justice Taunts ACLU
UPI FILE

There are certain checks that aid news and civil rights organizations in ensuring that the Federal government does not operate under a veil of secrecy. One such check is the Freedom of Information Act, which allows for suits against the government to obtain secret documents; but the Feds are increasingly treating FOIA as a joke.

Such is the case regarding a recent FOIA request for information about GPS tracking of citizens submitted to the Justice Department by the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU filed the request to find out under what conditions Justice deems it appropriate to use GPS tracking to spy on unwitting American citizens.

The ACLU explains in a statement why it wants to know more:

The Supreme Court has weighed in on location tracking, but the government still has wide latitude to exploit new technologies and legal uncertainty. In February 2012, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in U.S. v. Jones, holding that the Fourth Amendment restricts the circumstances in which the government may attach a GPS device to a car and secretly track its movements. Although the Court’s decision in Jones makes clear that the government’s attachment and use of a GPS tracker on a car constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment, it does not say whether that search requires a warrant from a judge—a crucial protection because it forces agents to justify their actions to a neutral outsider. Furthermore, the court’s opinion does not address other methods of location tracking, such as cell phone tracking, drones, or license plate readers.

The ACLU alleges that the information that it needs to clear up important questions regarding the situation can be found in two Justice memos that outline the Department’s views regarding what its obligations are under the U.S. v. Jones ruling. Justice complied with the FOIA request — but it did so in such a way that the information provided does little more than taunt the civil liberties group. The Department released the memos, but they are so heavily redacted that none of the information is available.

The ACLU says it will ask for a court order requiring the Justice Department to release the documents, which the group says are “improperly withheld.”

“The purpose [of] FOIA is to make sure the government doesn’t operate under secret law–and right now that’s exactly what these memos are,” the statement concludes.

Sam Rolley

Staff writer Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After learning about many of the biases present in most modern newsrooms, Rolley became determined to find a position in journalism that would allow him to combat the unsavory image that the news industry has gained. He is dedicated to seeking the truth and exposing the lies disseminated by the mainstream media at the behest of their corporate masters, special interest groups and information gatekeepers.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Department Of Justice Taunts ACLU”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • demsagainst obama

    Every once in a while the aclu actualy gets it right.

    • Harold Olsen

      It’s rare but it does happen. I can’t see myself every going to them for anything. I don’t believe in their agenda.

      • Robert Smith

        Let’s hear it about the ACLU and Rush Limbaugh: “”But we have always said that the ACLU’s real client is the Bill of Rights, and we will continue to safeguard the values of equality, fairness and privacy for everyone, regardless of race, economic status or political point of view,” Simon said.”

        Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108140,00.html#ixzz2ILXtI2pS

        Oops, they haven’t really gotten out of their pattern of protecting sleazeballs.

        BTW, for the real position of the ACLU on the Second Amendment you can find it at: http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/second-amendment

        Rob

      • Vicki

        From Robert Smith’s link above on the ACLU position on the 2nd Amendment.
        “ACLU POSITION
        Given the reference to “a well regulated Militia” and “the security of a free State,” the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. ”

        Given their ability to understand English I have ALWAYS been suspicious of their positions but, like a stopped clock, they can be right once in a while.

        Oh and for those who are curious here is the actual ENGLISH meaning:
        http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html

      • Speak2Truth

        It’s important to understand that the ACLU’s agenda is to protect the Leftist agenda. At this time, they are likely concerned that an actual American President and his Administration would use this tracking ability against actual enemies of America, Leftists and Islamists. They have to consider that Obama may not be President forever.

        As far as their position on the 2nd Amendment goes, a “collective” Right means every single member has that Right. The Right of The People to keep and bear arms (combat weaponry, assault weapons, etc.) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. But it conflicts with the Communist agenda. So, the ACLU claims some “collective” Right then does nothing to actually defend that Right.

        Obama’s anti-Arms executive orders certainly infringe on that “collective” Right as well as the Individual Right ( as recently confirmed by the Supreme Court). Don’t expect the ACLU to actually defend American civil liberties.

        They haven’t gotten it right. They are just protecting the enemies of the US from scrutiny.

    • Greg

      Gosh, the ACLU DID get it right for once. Their action in this matter gives more credibility to the saying that “even a blind hog finds an acorn now and then”…. ;)

    • Joe Spano

      NRA———————— =

      Nasty, Really, Awful………………

      • Vicki

        Argument to ridicule.

      • Jana

        spano

        sad pathetic argumentative nagging oppressor.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        Parroting, without understanding!

  • Steadysteve

    Did they really expect transparency from this administration?

  • Ranchman

    Rarely do I agree with the ACLU but, this time they’re right. To think, though, that we can possibly force this administration to be honest is a sick joke. They’ve been operating under a cloak of secrecy since Jan. 2008 and before. This admin., though, takes the cake. Thie thing about the ACLU that really gets me is, they are snaring younger generations into their web of “anything goes.” They’re fighting to rid society of the influence of God and religion and morality as a whole. The ACLU has operated under Marxist principles since its inception.

    • Gordon Cole

      I AM SO GLAD THAT THERE IS SOMEONE ELSE OUT THERE THAT UNDERSTANDS THE REAL TRUTH ABOUT TH SO CALLED ACLU.
      WHO ARE THEY TO SAY THAT PEOPLE CAN NOT PRAY. THEIR BIG PLOY ABOUT STOPPING MILITARY PERSONAL FROM PRAYING TOGETHER IS SO OUTRAGES THAT I THINK THEY NEED TO LEAVE THE PROTECTION OF THEIR FAT CAT LITTLE DESKS AND HAVE THE BACK BONE TO JOIN UP AND SERVE WHITH THOSE THAT HAVE MADE IT POSSIBLE FOR THEM TO FEEL SO SAFE AND SECURE IN THE LOOSER JOBS. THE ONLY REASON THEY HAVE TAKEN UP WITH THIS ORGANIZATION IS BECAUSE THEY COULDN’T FIND A REAL JOB.
      MABY IF THEY WOULD HAVE KEPT THER NOISES OUT OF CHILDREN BEING ABLE TO HAVE A MOMENT TO PRAY IN SCHOOL THE MASS SHOOTINGS PROBABLY WOULD NEVER OF HAPPENED.
      IF YOU LOOK BACK WHEN PEOPLE WERE ALOWED TO PRAY TOGETHER OR HAVE A MOMENT OF SILENCE AND PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO TH FLAG THERE WAS NO GUN VIOLENCE INVOLVING CHILDREN.
      I WAS BROUGHT UP THAT WAY AND VIOLENCE WAS A FIST FIGHT WHICH LED TO A SUSPENSION AND HAVING TO DEAL WITH YOUR PARENTS.
      THE ACLU WENT SO FAR AS TO TELL KIDS TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST THER PARENTS!
      BY THE WAY I AM X-MILITARY AND HAVE WORKED AT A POLICE DEPARTMENT AND I CAN TELL YOU IT IS A FACT THAT PEOPLE THAT DON’T RESPECT AUTHORITY ARE THE ONES THAT LOOK UP TO THE ACLU.
      HAVE THE ACLU EXPLAIN WHY THEY DID NOT OPEN THEIR MOUTHN WHEN THE GOVERNMENT SPREADS ONE LIE AFTER ANOTHER ABOUT GUNS, WHEN IN FACT THE SUPPLIED DRUG CARTELS WITH A VERY LARGE AMOUNT OF ILLEGAL GUNS THAT COST A BORDER PATROL AGEANT HIS LIFE, AND EVERYONE JUST LOOKS THE OTHER WAY INCLUDING THE ACLU.
      WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHY HAS NO ONE BEEN CHARGED IN THIS BORDER AGENTS LIFE.
      AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED THE PRESIDENT IS RESPONSABLE BECAUSE HE HAD TO APPROVE WHAT WENT WRONG, AND NOW HE IS CRYING GUN CONTROL.
      KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK AT THE ACLU I HOPE YOU NEVER NEED THE ASSISTANCE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT BECAUSE YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM IN THIS COUNTRY, AND MAKE SURE THAT THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE CAUSED THESE TRAGIC ACTS ARE GLORIFIED DAY AFTER DAY IN THE NEWS.
      KIDS TODAY THINK THAT TO BE NOTICED THEY NEED TO DO SOMETHING OUTRAGEOUS THANKS TO PARENTS LIVING IN FEAR THAT IF THEY CORRECT THEIR CHILDREN THEY ARE GOING TO WIND UP IN COURT THAKS TO TH ACLU!

      • Robert Smith

        Gordon screams: “MABY IF THEY WOULD HAVE KEPT THER NOISES OUT OF CHILDREN BEING ABLE TO HAVE A MOMENT TO PRAY IN SCHOOL THE MASS SHOOTINGS PROBABLY WOULD NEVER OF HAPPENED.”

        Well… What kind of a god allows such a horror to fall upon innocent children because of what adults do? Kids aren’t responsible for the sins of the father.

        Such a brutal god. How could he have done such a thing?

        Rob

      • demsagainst obama

        ” Kids aren’t responsible for the sins of the father.”

        No but the father and mother will pay dearly for sins against the children.

      • Steve Thomas

        As long as there are tests in public schools, there will prayer!

      • Vicki

        Robert Smith says:
        “Well… What kind of a god allows such a horror to fall upon innocent children because of what adults do? Kids aren’t responsible for the sins of the father.

        Such a brutal god. How could he have done such a thing?”

        VERY good question Robert.

        Tell us, please, if you will why your god (government) allows such a horror to fall upon innocent children (Gun-Free School Zones) then PUNISHES THE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF INNOCENT ADULTS?

      • Jana

        Robert,
        My god didn’t do this terrible thing, your god did.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        Good one, Jana! Robert’s “brutal-god” is responsible. Precisely!

      • http://Aol.com CommonSense4America

        Robert Smith: Such a brutal god. How could he have done such a thing?

        Because God is not allowed in schools anymore.

      • Jana

        God did not go into Sandy Hook and kill children, nor did He cause a mentally sick man to go into that school to kill children.
        Neither does God come down and stop stupid people from doing stupid things. He created us with a free will.
        In the last few decades it seems a large majority of people with their free will have chosen to remove God from our society, from our country and if they would have their way even from our vocabulary.
        These same misguided people then have the audacity to blame God for any and all tragedies that befall mankind when they have chosen to distance themselves from the Lord our God.
        God is patient, longsuffering, loving and kind. No where in the Bible does it state that God is going to come down and force us to love Him or will He forceably protect us against ourselves when we have rejected His values, His Wisdom, and His rules.

      • walter agard

        Robert Smith, GOD gives everyone a free will. He didnt hold our mind a prisoner.You have to choose. “RIGHT/ WRONG.

    • John C

      If you have ever seen the ACLU manifest then you will understand there aim and goal. The last line says and I quote.”the goal is communism” That has been the motive all along. Ovomit is going even farther than they wanted to go and they are just starting to realize that perhaps communism is not quite what they thought it was. They are in fact a very evil entity, and no amount of contempt on are part will be enough. We are heading to a revolution, do not turn in any guns you may have and get more and lot’s of ammunition. Grenade launchers will be in high demand and you will have to buy the grenades on the black market.
      The definition of evil = Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Harry Reid. There are half a dozen other definitions, but those three are enough.

      • Robert Smith

        Another diaper load from John C. Note he has no citations in his rant.

        Fore the real story of what the ACLU is about go to: http://www.aclu.org/about-aclu-0

        See for yourselves what the real truth is.

        Rob

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        ACLU: The foremost missionary organization of Abortionism and related cults such as Evangelical Paganism. Variously known as Atheists, Communists and Liars Unscrupulous; Anti-Christian Litigation Union and Abortionite Confraternity of Litigious Ultra-Leftists. An organization devoted to destroying the moral foundations of American society by
        eradicating the influence of religion from public life.

    • Robert Smith

      Awwwwwwwwwww Vicki and the rest… Argument by name calling, presumption, and a whole bunch of other things I’ll bet Vicki has accused others of doing.

      ROFL….

      It wasn’t your god’s fault. Obviously you are ducking responsibility on his behalf.

      Rob

      • Robert Smith

        Either he is all powerful, or he isn’t.

        Don’t duck the issue.

        Rob

      • Jana

        The reason we stated it wasn’t our God, is because you don’t serve the same god we do, quite obviously.
        However, if you will see above Robert, I did answer you.

      • Vicki

        Robert Smith tells us to not duck the issue right after he ducks the issue. How typical.

        Here is the issue RS has been ducking.
        “Tell us, please, if you will, why your god (government) allows such a horror to fall upon innocent children (Gun-Free School Zones) then PUNISHES THE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF INNOCENT ADULTS?”

      • Vicki

        Here is another good question for Robert to duck.

        Robert and I agree that the war on (some) drugs is bad and, in my opinion, unconstitutional.

        Robert points out all the reasons the war on (some) drugs is bad (when he is not complaining about some mythical brutal god) so we know he understands some of the finer points of private property.

        What I don’t understand is that when presented with a war on (some) firearms, Robert is apparently gung-ho to have the government suppress that right.

  • Bobseeks

    FOIA is a joke. I have been involved in putting information together for FOIA requests and each time the politicians sifted through the information and removed all damaging information – the very information the FOIA requester was supposed to be given. The only way FOIAs will ever be helpful is if the requester is allowed to go through the files himself. In many cases the requester will need professional help in deciding what is relevant and where to look for it. By the way, the politicians in this case are all democrats which shouldn’t surprise anyone.

    • Vicki

      “In many cases the requester will need professional help in deciding what is relevant and where to look for it.”

      No problem. Just get the FOIA and then get the redacted parts. The politicians have thoughtfully pointed directly at what is relevant.

  • Scarface

    This rogue administration by now should be neck deep in impeachment proceedings

    • Ted Crawford

      To what useful purpose!?!? Given the current make up of Congress the results this time would be the same as it was in the other two occurances, No substantive change!
      Surly, you don’t expect a nearly senile old characture of a Majority Leader, unable to even pass a budget in nearly four years, to effectively preside over a Senate Hearing on The Removal of a President, do you?

      • Vicki

        “Ted Crawford says:
        “To what useful purpose!?!? ”

        Might keep them too busy to cause more damage :)

  • s mart pants

    I flip the bird to the eye in the sky .” Ny Dolls

  • Ben Gardner

    What we need are more Daniel Ellsbergs and Julian Assanges — whistle blowers putting everything on the line to release all of this treasonous material to the public. Except in proven cases of national security, therre is nothing that the government does (and I’ve paid for) that needs to be kept from the American public.

  • Chester

    Ben, who gets to decide what is in the National Security interest, and when? Is it you, after someone is killed because you passed on information that, albeit unintentionally, revealed who they were or where they were working? Or is it left to the people who actually know what and who need to be protected from accidental disclosure? This IS a serious question, and should get some serious thought before you complain about not getting everything you ask for. I know, some of what you ask for would not seem to have natiohal security ramifications, but things aren’t always as they seem.

    • Tommy

      Everything this administration does must have national security ramifications attached to it because it seems most everything is classified. Transparent my behind, this administration does everything in secrecy and even if it has nothing to do with national security it gets hidden behind executive privilage. Come on, lets be real, they have no intentions of letting us know anything more then they want us to know, which isn’t much.

    • Wellarmed

      Can a member of the NRA also be a member of the sierra club? Can a member of the Sierra club also be a member of the American Petrol Institute? And on and on ?

      I do agree that the ACLU has become lost in their position. If they believe in the ” Collective ” position view then they should have no problem supporting the National Rifle Association, as individuals who wish to collectively pool their money to support their position, especially in the face of government who no longer recognizes individual liberty.

      There are positions of theirs that I support and those that I do not. I am not certain if they could gain another 5 million dues paying members if they simply recognized the basic natural right of self defense, but who knows?

      I think it would be interpreted very similar to Mitt Romney purchasing a NRA Life membership before running for election? if they decided to change their position.

      I am a born again Atheist, so I cannot say that I necessarily support Christianity in our Public Schools? I believe that in private schools that you can implement Christianity or any other religion without the approval of the children that attend the school.

      I find it very interesting that the second that Yoga is introduced in the public school system that certain Americans find that it may be imposing the Buddhist religion and, is a violation of the separation of church and state. And they may be right?

      I am not certain which religious faction is attempting to invoke that right, but I have a guess. I promise you all that I am not trying to be a pain in the a$$ devils advocate. I feel beat up when I attempt to interpret the position of those who oppose the actions of our current administration.

      Please hear me out. I do not believe that one can be a good study of history without understanding the religion that the members of that society were following during that period of time in question. I am sorry for the Green Span speak and know it is difficult to follow.

      I am not certain that one can truly understand Shakespeare without a fairly good understanding of Christianity. I may be wrong? but If I am right would we be all willing to agree that Christianity should be taught in public schools as literature so the students can achieve a better understanding of Shakespeare?

      If that is the case then we should all agree that the Buddhist ideology should also be examined during the course of yoga instruction when that course is being taught. That in and of itself is NOT an endorsement of a particular ideology or religion, just an closer examination of that period in time to get a better handle on history.

      If we agree that Christianity is not to be examined in public schools ( which position I do not necessarily support ) ;as it may limit a students ability to fully comprehend and adequately examine history, then we should also conclude that there is no room for further investigation into other religions such as Buddhist, Jewish, Taoism, pagan, or Native American Religion?

      We need to lay this issue to rest, as not all of us are Christians, and are not certain which God everyone is referring too when one talks about removing God from the School system which has potentially caused all this mayhem.

      I believe in everyone’s right to practice their religion as they wish with zero interference from the government in anyway as long as no one is being harmed in the process. I would support the teaching of religious studies in our public schools and it would be integrated into the History departments as long as the students understood that the school took no position for or against a particular religion and that they were simply discussing literature for the period of history in question?

  • Ted Crawford

    This simply points out the addage that there is no honor amoung thiefs! Two Socialistic entites fighting amoung themselves! Which ever wins, it’s probable that America will lose in the long term!

    • Joe Spano

      You are the typical doom & gloom.

      • Vicki

        Ad Hominem

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        Boo, flaccid argument…

  • TML

    “Although the Court’s decision in Jones makes clear that the government’s attachment and use of a GPS tracker on a car constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment, it does not say whether that search requires a warrant from a judge—a crucial protection because it forces agents to justify their actions to a neutral outsider.”

    If it has been determined that GPS tracking on cars constitutes a search under the 4th Amendment then it follows that such search must, as prescribed in the Amendment, be preceded by a warrant.

    • Robert Smith

      What about going down the street with infrared cameras looking for houses with grow rooms?

      What about having the electric company report to law enforcement that the electric bill went up significantly for someone? (lights for a growing operation)

      What about using dogs at a traffic stop to “find” drugs so they can initiate a search of your car?

      Rob

      • Vicki

        All 4th amendment violations. (Yes RS and I can agree on something). What is the ACLU doing about those? Got a link for us RS? And I know it can take a long time but the war on (some) drugs has been going on for MANY MANY years.

        Oh and the progressives used the same tactic on people then (and now) to demonize the peoples right to their possessions (herbs that you grow in those grow rooms).

        One of the reasons is to establish precedent to come in and take all possessions the master (government) doesn’t want the slaves to have.

        Fight for other people to exercise your (and their) rights or loose the ability to exercise your rights.

      • TML

        I would say the first and third should be considered searches under the 4th Amendment, and therefore require a warrant prior to law enforcement engaging those activities. The second one, I can’t really classified as a search I think, and seems rather pointless since I don’t see a warrant for a drug search being justified merely on the grounds of an increased electric bill (which is to saying nothing of the fact that a gas powered generator could avert such a report.

  • ibcamn

    it does not matter to me if they get one right once in a while or not.the ACLU is just an extension of the Obama admin.they may have to use whats right once in a wile to get their way!don’t think for a minute they have changed their tune..who knows,maybe the pres pissed them off or something and they are going off track for a min..but they will be right back on track shortly!don’t trust them in any way shape or form.they are just using the law to get what they want right now..the ACLU is a life sucking mob style organization that is just after your money for the fat cat people in charge,sound familier??

    • Joe Spano

      Your comment is all rubbish………………………..NRA=

      Nasty, Rants, Awful………………….

      • Vicki

        Argument to ridicule AND Ad hominem. Joe’s work training is progressive.

      • Jana

        spano
        Sad Pathetic Argumentative Nagging Oppressor = Spano

  • http://midcontent ridge runner

    The DOJ(dept of Jerks) has always had lots of worthless lawyers, but the puke that is the head of the Dept.ow is a certifiable racist, a muslim symathy giver and a pedophile defender. Democrats Pres. always stock their staff and appointees of their perverted mind set. In FDR there was a definiate communist flavor, In Carter it was lack of energy and dertioating nd destroyng the military, that bit him in the reat, Clinton is was the shulb who was in White House, turning into the Whorehouse on the hill,no underwear, no problem’ Even Hillary, was playing grab azz with a pooor smuck who ended up stiff in more ways than one, and strange a (suicide) elimation act. No prosecution on the Black Panthers (aka Muslim Freaks of Clypso Louie, the White Hater), all armed to the nines, impeding voters, no charges, muslim terrorists, along with America’s Most Wanted, all visiting and staying in the WH, Socialist Democrats supporting endless regulations and the beginnings of a data base on every one. See a dictatorship forming, any registration of any type involving government on law abiding citizens, should sound an alert.

  • http://none John chinn

    So. The ACLU is finding out that as long as they turn on the American Citizen , It’s OK with Democrats. But. Hold Democrats feet to the fire. Not OK

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

    More insanity from Obama and his administration. Are you sure you want this man and his administration in charge of regulating your lives, folks?

    ABORTED FETUS INGREDIENTS IN VACCINES MEDICATIONS MAKE UP JUICES CANDY PEPSI FOODS TEA COFFEE SOUP GUM WATER GATORADE MOUNTAIN DEW GUMMIES SOYLENT GREEN IS HERE !!! CANNIBALS Drink Pepsi Products !!!

    PEPSI SERVES UP ABORTED FETAL CELLS IN SOFT DRINKS WHICH MAKES YOU WHO DRINK PEPSI CANNIBALS !!!

    Obama agency rules Pepsi’s use of aborted fetal cells in soft drinks constitutes ‘ordinary business operations’.

    (NaturalNews) The Obama Administration has given its blessing to PepsiCo to continue utilizing the services of a company that produces flavor chemicals for the beverage giant using aborted human fetal tissue. LifeSiteNews.com reports that the Obama Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) has decided that PepsiCo’s arrangement with San Diego, Cal.-based Senomyx, which produces flavor enhancing chemicals for Pepsi using human embryonic kidney tissue, simply constitutes “ordinary business operations.”

    The issue began in 2011 when the non-profit group Children of God for Life (CGL) first broke the news about Pepsi’s alliance with Senomyx, which led to massive outcry and a worldwide boycott of Pepsi products. At that time, it was revealed that Pepsi had many other options at its disposal to produce flavor chemicals, which is what its competitors do, but had instead chosen to continue using aborted fetal cells — or as Senomyx deceptively puts it, “isolated human taste receptors”

    A few months later, Pepsi’ shareholders filed a resolution petitioning the company to “adopt a corporate policy that recognizes human rights and employs ethical standards which do not involve using the remains of aborted human beings in both private and collaborative research and development agreements.” But the Obama Administration shut down this 36-page proposal, deciding instead that Pepsi’s used of aborted babies to flavor its beverage products is just business as usual, and not a significant concern.

    “We’re not talking about what kind of pencils PepsiCo wants to use — we are talking about exploiting the remains of an aborted child for profit,” said Debi Vinnedge, Executive Director of CGL, concerning the SEC decision. “Using human embryonic kidney (HEK-293) to produce flavor enhancers for their beverages is a far cry from routine operations!”

    To be clear, the aborted fetal tissue used to make Pepsi’s flavor chemicals does not end up in the final product sold to customers, according to reports — it is used, instead, to evaluate how actual human taste receptors respond to these chemical flavorings. But the fact that Pepsi uses them at all when viable, non-human alternatives are available illustrates the company’s blatant disregard for ethical and moral concerns in the matter.

    Back in January, Oklahoma Senator Ralph Shortey proposed legislation to ban the production of aborted fetal cell-derived flavor chemicals in his home state. If passed, S.B. 1418 would also reportedly ban the sale of any products that contain flavor chemicals derived from human fetal tissue, which includes Pepsi products as well as products
    produced by Kraft and Nestle.

    Full article: http://2012patriot.wordpress.com/2012/03/23/aborted-fetus-ingredients-in-
    vaccines-medications-make-up-juices-candy-pepsi-foods-tea-coffee-soup-gum-water-
    gatorade-mountain-dew-gummies/

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

    Richard Stevens is a lawyer in Washington, D.C., and author of Dial 911 and Die.

    Underlying all “gun control” ideology is this one belief.” “Private citizens don’t need firearms because the police will protect them from crime.” That belief is both false and dangerous for two reasons.

    First, the police cannot and do not protect everyone from crime. Second, the government and the police in most localities owe no legal duty to protect individuals from criminal attack. When it comes to deterring crime and defending against criminals, individuals are ultimately responsible for themselves and their loved ones. Depending solely on police emergency response means relying on the telephone as the only defensive tool. Too often, citizens in trouble dial 911 . . . and die.

    Statistics confirm the obvious truth that the police in America cannot prevent violent crime. In 1997 for example, nationwide there were 18,209 murders, 497,950 robberies, and 96,122 rapes. All those crimes were unprevented and undeterred by the police and the criminal justice system.

    Many criminals use firearms to commit their crimes. For example, in 1997 criminals did so in 68 percent of murders and 40 percent of robberies. Thus criminals either have or can obtain firearms. The existing “gun control” laws do not stop serious criminals from getting guns and using them in crimes.

    Practically speaking, it makes little sense to disarm the innocent victims while the criminals are armed. It is especially silly to disarm the victims when too often the police are simply unable to protect them. As Richard Mack, former sheriff of Graham County, Arizona, has observed: “Police do very little to prevent violent crime. We investigate crime after the fact.”

    Americans increasingly believe, however, that all they need for protection is a telephone. Dial 911 and the police, fire, and ambulance will come straight to the rescue. It’s faster than the pizza man. Faith in a telephone number and the local cops is so strong that Americans dial 911 over 250,000 times per day.

    Yet, does dialing 911 actually protect crime victims? Researchers found that less than 5 percent of all calls dispatched to police are made quickly enough for officers to stop a crime or arrest a suspect. The 911 bottom line: “cases in which 911 technology makes a substantial difference in the outcome of criminal events are extraordinarily rare.”

    It’s not just that the police cannot protect you. They don’t even have to come when you call. In most states the government and police owe no legal duty to protect individual citizens from criminal attack. The District of Columbia’s highest court spelled out plainly the “fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.”

    In the especially gruesome landmark case the “no-duty” rule got ugly. Just before dawn on March 16, 1975, two men broke down the back door of a three-story home in Washington, D.C., shared by three women and a child. On the second floor one woman was sexually attacked. Her housemates on the third floor heard her screams and called the police.

    The women’s first call to D.C. police got assigned a low priority, so the responding officers arrived at the house, got no answer to their knocks on the door, did a quick check around, and left. When the women frantically called the police a second time, the dispatcher promised help would come—but no officers were even dispatched.

    The attackers kidnapped, robbed, raped, and beat all three women over 14 hours.

    When these women later sued the city and its police for negligently failing to protect them or even to answer their second call, the court held that government had no duty to respond to their call or to protect them. Case dismissed.

    The law is similar in most states. A Kansas statute precludes citizens from suing the government or the police for negligently failing to enforce the law or for failing to provide police or fire protection. A California law states that “neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service.” As one California appellate court wrote, “police officers have no affirmative statutory duty to do anything.”

    The state legislatures and courts protect government entities and police departments from civil liability for failing to provide adequate police protection. Some states invoke the “sovereign immunity” defense, a throwback to the days when the subjects were forbidden to sue the king.

    Other states have statutes that prevent legal challenges to police “discretionary” functions. Courts preclude lawsuits in those states by holding that answering emergency calls or providing police protection are “discretionary” functions.

    Many states evade liability by relying on the ironically named “public duty” doctrine. Like a George Orwell slogan, that doctrine says: police owe a duty to protect the public in general, but not to protect any particular individual.

    Police Advice: “Get a Gun”

    http://www.psacake.com/dial_911.asp

  • http://yahoo.com shade

    For anyone interested! Last week a Senator reported on CSAPN that the US Government was using “drones” here in the States! At first I thought, “OMG another nut case” UNTIL! for the last 4 weeks, I have notice a small aircraft flying around my area of the State of CT. It had a strange sounding motor, one I had never heard before, but kind of ignored it. Until I heard what the Senator said. SO yesterday morning, while walking my 700 foot driveway to get my mail, I heard the little bugger again, I looked up and sure enough there was this little “plane” that kept circling the Town. When it flew over my head, I promptly, mostly having fun, flipped it off! OK! So what! Well it promptly turned 15 degrees North of due West, a heading directly toward the Westover Massachusetts Air Base. SO what, it wasn’t anything, RIGHT! I am NOT paranoid but found it interesting. Next time I see it, I will promptly pull down my pants and with a big sign say, “KISS MY ASS!” Maybe it’ll land!

    • Wellarmed

      I too have witnessed drones flying in public air space in both NM and CA. These devices like cameras on every corner in America have no place in a free society. The issue of a GPS tracking device being attached to your vehicle is really a moot point when one considers that the shear volume of cameras and the ability to track your every move regardless of what is attached to your vehicle is currently implemented and it not a pie in the sky idea.

      My home town of Baltimore is the new model of the police state coming to a town near you! Last time I visited home I found a massive array of cameras interlaced throughout the city, and there was no intention of hiding them as they were all in plane sight with flashing blue strobe lights and a placard that identified them as BPD property. The town looked and felt like Kosovo with burned out cars on the streets, Bricked up row homes, prostitutes and drug dealers conducting transactions directly underneath and in full view of these cameras.

      These cameras were not put in place for law enforcement! It was clearly evident as I saw not one black and white arrive to apprehend a single low life breaking the law and there was no shortage of people with which to make an arrest. The other day I also heard of a town in Southern California (Moreno Valley) that is also about to receive a Federal Grant to also have it’s town officially turned into the next Warsaw Ghetto with the same type of networked camera system.

      The bigger question is are these cameras linked into the NSA and are they being used by OUR government to track and record the citizens daily routines in conjunction with cell phone tracking data to create road maps which could be used to intercept those who wish to offer dissenting view points to the governments actions? I do not know and I doubt a FOIA request would bear any fruit on the matter. Our elected representative were hired to be our watch dogs in DC to prevent these types of systems from being put in place. Where in the hell did we [ our federal government ] who is absolutely broke in every sense of the term find the money ( borrowed from China ) to implement this in such a time of intensive financial austerity? And why?

      Am I the only one concerned about this? I unfortunately do believe that a certain degree of paranoia at this point in time would be warranted and that my fellow Americans should stop giving a dam what is going on with the Kardashians or the Ravens game, as we may be sheep herded to the slaughter? What do you think?

      • TexasVetgal

        Yes,..but they would be there in a split second to make an arrest of someone handing out Bibles.

  • http://ATT.NET SONNY

    WOW.THIS MAY BE THE ONLY TIME IN MY LIFE I COULD AGREE WITH THE ACLU.I FEEL THEY ARE ONE OF THE MAIN THINGS WRONG IN THE USA TODAY.THEY ARE TRYING TO TAKE GOD OR ANY REFERENCE TO GOD OUT OF OUR LANGUAGE.THE SADDEST PART IS WE THE TAXPAYERS PAY FOR ALL THEIR FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS AGAINST OUR COUNTRY.DOES SOMETHING SEEM WRONG HERE??FOLKS THE SAD PART IS WE LET THE ACLU HAPPEN ON OUR WATCH

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.