Sure, bring your car too

This didn’t take long. If a U.S. citizens can be separated when breaking the law, why not those who choose to jump the fence? It’s “brutal and offensive?” What about taking my bucks to pay for all of this nonsense? It sure is brutal and offensive to me. We must get an immigration bill and pronto but the rate we are going we will have nothing but an open border bill:


A federal judge in California will allow a Congolese migrant’s lawsuit challenging the federal government’s practice of separating families for immigration detention to proceed.

U.S. District Court Judge Dana Sabraw of San Diego issued the ruling late Wednesday, finding the policy may violate the Constitution. The decision is not a ruling on the merits of the dispute.

“In the most forceful language, the court rejected the Trump administration’s claim that the Constitution permits it to engage in the inhumane practice of tearing little children away from their parents,” said Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the America Civil Liberties Union’s immigrants’ rights project. The ACLU organized the lawsuit and serves as counsel for the lead plaintiff, a Congolese immigrant identified in court papers as “Ms. L” who arrived in the United States with her 6-year-old daughter on Nov. 1, 2017.


The judge explained that the right to family integrity is established by the Constitution’s due process guarantees. That right applies in Ms. L’s circumstances, Sabraw found, because she is lawfully seeking asylum.

The court also agreed that the government conduct alleged is so outrageous it “shocks the conscience.”

“Such conduct, if true, as it is assumed to be on the present motion, is brutal, offensive, and fails to comport with traditional notions of fair play and decency,” he wrote. “At a minimum, the facts alleged are sufficient to show the government conduct at issue ‘shocks the conscience’ and violates plaintiffs’ constitutional right to family integrity.” More at the

Daily Caller

DEA and ATF storing gun show attendees license plates

Why this is not a major news story is no doubt because it involves us “bitter clingers.” By now all of this information is stored in the great data center in Utah. 343 million plus images are now stored. Been to a gun show lately? No doubt you now are a threat to America. Here we go:

According to emails obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union, federal authorities planned to monitor gun show parking lots with automatic license plate readers.

The insight comes from a damning report released by the ACLU this week on a secretive program by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration to build a massive database of license plates images collected by automated license plate reader devices. As part of this investigation, emails released through the Freedom of Information Act detailed a planned cooperation between the DEA’s National License Plate Recognition initiative and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to scan and record the plates and vehicle images of gun show attendees.

“DEA Phoenix Division Office is working closely with ATF on attacking the guns going to [redacted] and the gun shows, to include programs/operation with LPRs at the gun shows,” reads an April 2009 email.

The time and place mentioned in the email coincides with known information on the Justice Department’s Fast and Furious operation, a controversial “gunwalking” scandal that possibly transferred as many as 2,000 guns to drug traffickers in Mexico. That program was run out of the Phoenix ATF Field Division office, just two miles from the DEA office.

An undated DEA slideshow released to the ACLU mentions that, at the time, 100 plate readers were deployed in eight states to include California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Nevada, Florida, Georgia and New Jersey. These readers were a mixed of fixed, portable and mobile devices that could scan and record as many as ten images per vehicle.

The extensively redacted presentation states that the then-current database held some “343+ million” images and that cleared law enforcement personnel from other federal, state, local and tribal agencies could access the archives.

Keep reading

ACLU attacked Reid’s gun law, cites privacy and civil liberties


My modem is down, so have not been able to post. keep in mind, the ACLU was opposed to the gun bill. So while everyone is in a tizzy about the NRA… These are the facts. Here is a repost ..trying to do it from my iPad.

While the talking heads seem to blow off any concern about universal background checks as nothing serious and the “at least” we can do, it is a trojan horse according to the ACLU as they looked at the Reid bill that is floating around in the Senate.

Recent surveys indicate the vast majority of Americans appear to be ok with this. The Daily Caller has a post that gives us a heads up. Let’s not fall asleep on this one. Here we go: As Senate Democrats struggle to build support for new gun control legislation, the American Civil Liberties Union now says it’s among those who have “serious concerns” about the bill. The inclusion of universal background checks — the poll-tested lynchpin of most Democratic proposals — “raises two significant concerns,” the ACLU’s Chris Calabrese told TheDC Wednesday

. “The first is that it treats the records for private purchases very differently than purchases made through licensed sellers. Under existing law, most information regarding an approved purchase is destroyed within 24 hours when a licensed seller does a [National Instant Criminal Background Check System] check now,” Calabrese said, “and almost all of it is destroyed within 90 days.” “[U]nfortunately, we have seen in the past that the creation of these types of records leads sometimes to the creation of government databases and collections of personal information on all of us,”

Calabrese warned. “That’s not an inevitable result, but we have seen that happen in the past, certainly.” “As we’ve seen with many large government databases, if you build it, they will come.” “And existing law also bars the use of those records for other purposes,” Calabrese continued, explaining that the government is supposed to be barred by the Privacy Act from transferring database information between agencies without the consent of the individual citizen. “Contrast this with what the existing [Reid] legislation says, which is simply that a record has to be kept of a private transfer,” Calabrese highlighted, “and it doesn’t have any of the protections that we have in current law for existing licensees.” “And they come to use databases for all sorts of different purposes,”

Calabrese said. “For example, the National Counterterrorism Center recently gave itself the authority to collect all kinds of existing federal databases and performed terrorism related searches regarding those databases. They essentially exempted themselves from a lot of existing Privacy Act protections.” “So you just worry that you’re going to see searches of the databases and an expansion for purposes that were not intended when the information was collected.” “

Regulations … shall include a provision requiring a record of transaction of any transfer that occurred between an unlicensed transferor and unlicensed transferee,” according to the bill. The ACLU’s second “significant concern” with Reid’s legislation is that it too broadly defines the term “transfer,” creating complicated criminal law that law-abiding Americans may unwittingly break. “[I]t’s certainly a civil liberties concern,” Calabrese told TheDC. “You worry about, in essence, a criminal justice trap where a lawful gun owner who wants to obey the law inadvertently runs afoul of the criminal law.” “They don’t intend to transfer a gun or they don’t think that’s what they’re doing, but under the law they can be defined as making a transfer. We think it’s important that anything that is tied to a criminal sanction be easy to understand and avoid allowing too much prosecutorial discretion.” “For example, different gun ranges are treated differently,” Calabrese said. “You’re firing a firearm in one geographic location, you’re OK, but in another, you’re not. And those kind things, it’s going to be hard for your average consumer to really internalize and figure out the difference.” “Criminal sanctions shouldn’t hinge on those kinds of differences,” he said. Separate from the ACLU’s concerns with a universal background check system, Calabrese flagged another provision of the legislation invented by Sen. Boxer that the ACLU is “worried about” — school tiplines for the reporting of “potentially dangerous students” “We’re worried about this tip line,” Calabrese admitted. “We think we already have a phone number for reporting dangerous situations — it’s called 9-1-1.” “The tip line doesn’t have any guidance for who should be included, how we should vet these requests, who should be included in the system, what you should do with this information once you get it,” he warned. “It just seems like a dangerously unregulated avenue that’s going to risk pushing more kids into the criminal justice system.” “What’s a school supposed to do if they get an anonymous phone call that some kid is dangerous?” Calabrese went on. “How are they supposed to treat that? Do they have liability if they ignore it? Should this kid be suspended? Or should he be scrutinized by a school safety officer because of an anonymous tip?” Read more: Daily Caller Here is where the information will remain: Filmed from Redwood Road, you can see the progress of the NSA’s Utah Data Center also called the NSA Spy Center FROM:  NSA Spy Center Revealed: 100 years worth of data

DEA seeks presciption records without warrants

On the face of it, this does not appear to be a big story. What is important is the continuing effort to limit State’s Rights as well as our own. Forget privacy and Patient Doctor privilege. I see a more ominous future in the DEA’s march. Beware of the push for Mental Health evaluation before purchasing guns as has been suggested. Has any one ever been given a prescription for Valium when under a lot of stress? In fact, one in nine has seeked counseling some time in their life. Keep your eye out on this trojan horse and gun control.

The American Civil Liberties Union is seeking to block the Drug Enforcement Administration from obtaining prescription records without a warrant in Oregon.

The state of Oregon filed suit against the DEA last year after the agency sought to access the Oregon Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP), a database of prescription records for certain drugs. The ACLU and its Oregon affiliate hope to join the lawsuit on behalf of patients and doctors.

“Oregon law and the U.S. Constitution clearly require the DEA to get a warrant just like any other law enforcement agency,” David Fidanque of the ACLU of Oregon said. “The ACLU opposed the creation of the Oregon prescription database precisely because we were concerned about protecting the privacy of patients and doctors who have done nothing wrong. The Legislature agreed to add the search warrant requirement to partially address that concern.

In seeking to join the lawsuit on Saturday, the ACLU said the DEA’s actions violated the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The group argued that patients and physicians in Oregon have a “reasonable expectations of privacy in their prescription records,” and were protected from unreasonable searches. H/T: Raw Story (

Police Can Download Your Personal Data Against Your Will

Of course this comes as a surprise now doesn’t it? Anyone think that this is not in use by the Feds under the rubric of Anti-Terrorism Legislation and  protecting us from Terrorism? Here tis:

Michigan State Police have technology that can download cell phone data wirelessly during a routine traffic stop. So if you’re pulled over for rolling through a stop sign, the cops can now take everything on your cell phone against your will and without even telling you about it. This was uncovered and is now the subject of an ACLU request which, of course, the state police refuse to grant.  Via Duane Lester:

A US Department of Justice test of the CelleBrite UFED used by Michigan police found the device could grab all of the photos and video off of an iPhone within one-and-a-half minutes. The device works with 3000 different phone models and can even defeat password protections.

A project of the Michigan State University College of Law, has a long description of the worrisome ramifications of this new policy.

No, Michigan State Police Officer, you absolutely, without a doubt, positively, MAY NOT suck all the data out of my cell phone with your handy “extraction device.” … The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Since we’ve got government actors in the form of state police officers, the Fourth Amendment applies. The first question is whether cell phone owners have a reasonable expectation of privacy in what is stored on their phone when they are pulled over. The reasonable expectation has long been defined by the Supreme Court in Katz. Justice Harlan explained that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy if 1) the subject of a search expected privacy, and 2) society generally agrees that such an expectation of privacy exists.

More at Townhall

FDA Helps States Get Execution Drug

The Food and Drug Administration helped Arizona and California obtain a quick overseas source of a hard-to-find execution drug even as the agency declared it would not regulate or block imports, records show.

The ACLU accused the FDA of trying to hold two contradictory positions at once.

“The FDA is actively assisting these states, but they’re not enforcing the law, and they’re not doing anything to determine that the drugs are what they’re claimed to be and that they work properly,” said Natasha Minkser, death penalty policy director for the ACLU’s Northern California chapter More at .CNBC

Down memory lane, recall this? Supreme Court OK’s non-apporved execution drugs – yes, the ACLU had brought this up last year before the Supreme Court because the Non-approved drug “could be dangerous”

Guess who voted to stay the executions?? Yes, Sotomayer and Kagan.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayorand Kagan voted for the stay. Justice Elena Kagancast her first vote on the Supreme Court late Tuesday, joining the liberals in dissent when the high court cleared the way for the execution of an Arizona murderer.

“There is no evidence in the record to suggest that the drug obtained from a foreign source is unsafe,” the Supreme Court said.  GEE WHIZ.

The ACLU & its Stalinist heritage

Anyone out there who is a history buff, or has interest in the ACLU and its roots, will find this post from the Daily Caller a real find. What has been suspected for a long time, has now seen the light of day.  Here tis:

Noted author Paul Kengor has unearthed declassified letters and other documents in the Soviet Comintern archives linking early leaders of the ACLU with the Communist Party.

Kengor found a May 23, 1931 letter in the archives signed by ACLU founder Roger Baldwin, written on ACLU stationery, to then American Communist Party Chairman William Z. Foster asking him to help ACLU Chairman Harry Ward with his then-upcoming trip to Stalin’s Russia.

Baldwin wrote the letter at a time when Stalin was deporting 1.8 million Ukrainian peasants to Siberia under his policy of the forced collectivization of agriculture, which resulted in the deaths of up to 10 million Ukrainians in the two years that followed

These documents corroborate rumors that have circulated about the ACLU’s founders and early leaders dating back to the 1920s.

The ACLU would not comment on Kengor

“The problem here is what is being left out of the narrative,” Kengor said. “Palmer, who was attorney general to Woodrow Wilson, the great progressive’s progressive, understood, as did the Wilson administration, that many of these radicals were American communists who were literally devoted to the overthrow of the U.S. government and its replacement with a ‘Soviet-American republic.’

Kengor catalogs many of these in his book “Dupes.”

Conyers, ACLU Claim Obama Furthering Bush Legacy of Executive Branch Power Grab, Military Expansion

Recall how John Conyers was the first to comment that it would take a couple of lawyers a couple of days to figure out what was in the bills Congress was creating? Admitting he had not read them. We have an honest man.

Has the great awakening begun? We can only pray. Insight into what is happening to our great country. While I don’t agree totally with his comments, he is on to the Imperial President, and that is the best one could hope for from a Dem. One for the Gipper.

“The power of what has begun to be termed the imperial presidency grows, and the ability of our Democratic institutions, especially the federal legislative branch – us – to constrain it seems more uncertain,” Conyers said in his opening remarks at a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.), echoing others who testified before a subcommittee on Thursday, said both the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations represent an “imperial presidency.” Obama, Conyers said, has broken his promises to shut down Guantanamo, end military operations abroad, and has continued to expand the power of the executive branch.

Conyers said the Obama administration has “shut down complaints, investigations and lawsuits challenging executive branch action, such as illegal domestic surveillance, torture and rendition.” More at  CNS News

CAIR sues Oklahoma for banning Islamic law

Having posited yesterday, that perhaps a murky strategy existed in the Progressive game plan of blaming the Republicans for failure the next two years, it made me muse upon this story:

Unindicted terrorist co-conspirator reacts after 70% of voters approve.

The Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations announced today it will file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a state ballot measure that bars judges from considering Islamic law in any ruling.

Earlier we posted that three of the sitting Supreme Court Justices believe that “International Law” can be considered in judicial decisions. While not determinative, never the less, could be considered. Now the 9th Circuit court has come down on allowing foreign countries to file briefs in the Arizona V D.O.J. immigration case.  our opponent moves forward on our flank of the American Judicial system. See our earlier posts: Supreme Court takes into Account International Opinion and   11 Latin American Governments file briefs against Arizona

 Questioning with Boldness   has a great commentary on our earlier  post:

The opponent standing in the other corner may not be completely recognizable to us yet because he is rapidly transforming his appearance. What we do know about him, as his true image is being revealed, is that we have stared him down before and we beat him.

CAIR, whose national office is in the nation’s capital, describes itself as a civil-rights group, but FBI evidence points to its origin as a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoot Hamas, and the Justice Department designated it an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terror-finance case in U.S. history. The Washington, D.C.-based group, which has more than a dozen former and current leaders with known associations with violent jihad, is suing WND and two investigators behind the best-selling expose “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America”.

Awad was joined at the news conference by Chuck Thornton, deputy director of ACLU-Oklahoma; Imad Enchassi, imam of the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City; and Nathaniel Batchelder, director of the Central Oklahoma Human Rights Association. From  WND

ACLU Sues Government Over Use Of Drones In War Zones

Not that we didn’t know this was coming. I did wonder how long it would take until the Left would start to complain.

“In particular, the lawsuit asks for information on when, where and against whom drone strikes can be authorized, the number and rate of civilian casualties and other basic information essential for assessing the wisdom and legality of using armed drones to conduct targeted killings,” the ACLU said in a statement, announcing its action.

Why does it seem that almost every liberal group out there wants to provide information to the enemy? Personally, I think the fact that Obama has increased the use of drone strikes is a way of putting a check on the positive box. I do actually hate opposing the president on everything, you know.

“The government’s use of drones to conduct targeted killings raises complicated questions – not only legal questions, but policy and moral questions as well,” said Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU National Security Project. “These kinds of questions ought to be discussed and debated publicly, not resolved secretly behind closed doors. While the Obama administration may legitimately withhold intelligence information as well as sensitive information about military strategy, it should disclose basic information about the scope of the drone program, the legal basis for the program and the civilian casualties that have resulted from the program.”

Hat Tip:

%d bloggers like this: