Video: ACLU Lawyer Calls Obama “Judge, Jury, Executioner” Over Drone Attacks

A recently leaked Department of Justice “White Paper” gives the President of the United States and those he designates – “high government officials” – the authority to take the life of any American citizen, even if there is no proof that the citizen in question is involved in nefarious activities.

John Brennan, the Obama administration’s pick to replace Leon Panetta as the next CIA Director, has found his nomination put on hold by Senator Rand Paul after refusing to answer Paul’s question in front of the Senate sub-committee regarding the use of drones to attack American citizens domestically, again without ever having been charged with a crime in a court of law. Senator Paul calls the idea “appalling.”

In this episode of “The Truth Is Viral”, Nate Wessler, a lawyer with the ACLU’s National Security Project, echoes Senator Paul’s sentiments in this exclusive interview in which he calls Obama and the members of his administration “Judge, jury, and executioner.” That is a strong statement of condemnation coming from the historically ultra-liberal ACLU.

****CALL TO ACTION INFO****
WBKB PHONE: (989) 356-3434
FACEBOOK: http://www.facebook.com/WBKBTV
TWITTER: @WBKB11
YOUTUBE: http://www.youtube.com/user/wbkbtv
(Please remember to call only once as they are logging all numbers with CallerID)

****READ DEATH/RAPE THREATS  BELOW****

TTiV Forum thread: Twitter Followers Of Rapper “The Game” Threaten TTiV Host And His Wife With Murder And Rape

 

SOURCE: Bob Powell/The Truth Is Viral

ACLU Lawsuit To Challenge Ill. Gay Marriage Ban

ACLU SC 300x117 ACLU Lawsuit To Challenge Ill. Gay Marriage Ban

More than two dozen gay and lesbian couples in Illinois plan to file lawsuits Wednesday arguing that it’s unconstitutional for the state to deny them the right to marry, a move advocates hope will lead to legalized same-sex marriage in Illinois.

The two lawsuits — backed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois and the New York-based gay advocacy group Lambda Legal — include couples from the Chicago area, Bloomington and Marion. Both challenge a state law that defines marriage as between a man and woman, arguing that the Illinois Constitution guarantees the right for same-sex couples to marry under due process and equality clauses.

Legislation to eliminate the law’s language that prohibits gay marriage is pending, but a vote isn’t expected before the legislative session is scheduled to end this week. And although Illinois enacted same-sex civil unions last year, couples in the lawsuits said the limited rights and protections make them feel like second-class citizens.

The lead plaintiffs in the ACLU lawsuit, which includes nine couples, are Chicago police detective Tanya Lazaro and systems analyst Elizabeth Matos. The women, who’ve been together 15 years and have two children, reject the notion of a civil union.

“It’s not the same thing as a marriage. We want our relationship, our love and our commitment we’ve shown for 15 years to be recognized like everybody else’s,” Lazaro said. “When you’re growing up, you don’t dream of civil unions.”

Read More at OfficialWire. By Sophia Tareen, AP.

Photo Credit: forwardstl (Creative Commons)

Related posts:

  1. NAACP Backs Same-Sex Marriage As A Civil Right MIAMI (AP) – The NAACP passed a resolution Saturday endorsing…
  2. Prop. 8 Backers Seek Review Of Gay Marriage Case Same-sex couples in California will have to wait a while…

Obama Says Refusing to Hire Hardened Criminals is Racist

Judicial Watch

At the request of a left-wing civil rights group, the government agency that enforces employment discrimination is considering outlawing criminal background checks as a tool to screen job applicants because it presents a hiring barrier for minorities…

Because Hispanics and African Americans have higher rates of arrest and convictions than whites, they suffer discrimination at a disproportionate rate, according to the ACLU. This presents a barrier to hiring and promotion, the group claims, adding that 65 million Americans have a criminal record yet growing numbers of employers refuse to hire people with convictions. At the ACLU’s request the EEOC held a special meeting last week to focus on the economic, social and civil rights implications as the as the agency “considers updating its guidance on background checks.”

Various experts testified that “people of color” are disproportionately affected by the criminal background checks, creating yet another barrier for those returning to their community from the criminal justice system. A Justice Department official who handles “urban affairs” pointed out that a disproportionate number of African Americans have criminal records yet they need to be able to compete for legitimate job opportunities.

A college professor and civil rights attorney thanked the “new leadership” at the EEOC for bringing attention to a “profound civil rights challenge.” In a letter thanking EEOC commissioners, who are appointed by the president, for holding the meeting, the ACLU reminds the agency of a tragedy; “more than 850 reports from women and men around the country who have been refused or dismissed from employment because of their criminal record.” The ACLU also gives the commission “recommendations” to solve the matter.

Read more.

FCC Colluded with Left-Wing Organization to Regulate the Internet

Judicial Watch

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has uncovered documents from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that indicate officials at the FCC colluded with the leftist Free Press organization to publicly push a new plan to regulate the Internet under the FCC’s so-called “net neutrality” program. Judicial Watch obtained the documents pursuant to a December 27, 2010, Freedom of Information Act request.

In December 2010, the FCC voted 3-2 to advance its “net neutrality program.” This decision seems to fly in the face of an April, 2010 federal appeals court ruling that the FCC had exceeded its authority in seeking to regulate the Internet and enforce “net neutrality” rules.

The supporters of “net neutrality,” including Free Press, argue that high-speed Internet access is a “civil right,” and are recommending new government regulations to provide taxpayer-funded broadband Internet access to all populations, especially those deemed “underserved.” Opponents of “net neutrality” argue the program is designed to impose greater government control over the Internet and will result in less access, not more. Moreover, opponents of “net neutrality,” also dispute the claim that Internet access is a basic civil right protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Judicial Watch uncovered internal correspondence showing unusual coordination by some officials at the FCC and Free Press in pushing the “net neutrality” agenda in the run up to the controversial FCC vote in December:

Read more.

Obama Admin Wants Permission to Track You with a GPS, Without a Warrant

Robert Barnes, The Washington Post

It’s a wide, wired world out there, more so every day, and the Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to let law enforcement take advantage of it to build cases against the bad guys.

The administration wants the justices to overturn a decision last year by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that said police must get a warrant before launching a long-term surveillance of a suspect using a global positioning device attached to the man’s car.

In overturning the conviction of a D.C. nightclub owner accused of being a prominent cocaine kingpin, Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal said the appeals court decision was not faithful to a Supreme Court ruling that people have no expectation of privacy when traveling along public streets.

“Prompt resolution of this conflict is critically important to law enforcement efforts throughout the United States,” Katyal told the court in a petition asking them to take the case of United States v. Antoine Jones

“This case is really going to confront the court with the problem of adopting the Fourth Amendment to a new information age,” said Daniel Prywes, a Washington lawyer who wrote a brief in the Jones case for the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Read more.