Support Arpaio against the courts

PHOENIX –  Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, the self-proclaimed 'America's Toughest Sheriff,' who led the way for local law enforcement across the country to take up immigration enforcement, is now pulling back on his crackdown.

Other law enforcement officials who have followed Arpaio's lead are also expected to eventually back away from doubling as immigration agents, traditionally considered a federal responsibility.

Arpaio, the controversial sheriff of Maricopa County, which includes metropolitan Phoenix, has temporarily suspended all his immigration efforts after a federal judge concluded two weeks ago that the sheriff's office had racially profiled Latinos in its patrols, Arpaio spokesman Brandon Jones said.

Arpaio has for years created national headlines for his notorious criticism over Washington's handling of illegal immigration.

His critics, including the federal government, are gaining ground in their fight to get the sheriff out of immigration enforcement. Even before the ruling, Washington had stripped Arpaio's office of its approved federal immigration arrest powers and started to phase out the program across the country amid complaints that it led to abuses by local officers.

The recent ruling against Arpaio is expected to impact state immigration laws in Arizona, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina, where local officers question people's immigration status in certain instances.

Read more: http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2013/06/07/arizona-sheriff-joe-arpaio-forced-by-court-ruling-to-suspend-immigration/#ixzz2VXNDiwI6

Court Gives NSA GreenLight

In the storm that blew up Thursday over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court authorizing a subpoena of telecom data from Verizon, the resulting alliances made for some strange bedfellows with ideologies clashing, at times, with party labels.
Libertarian favorite Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., stood with liberal Democratic Sens. Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Jon Tester of Montana in criticizing the court-approved gathering of the telecom data. “Can the FBI or the NSA really claim that they need data scooped up on tens of millions of Americans?” Merkley asked.
Meanwhile, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina stood with Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California in defending the collection of telecom data.“This program has strong restrictions on it,” Feinstein -- who is chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee -- assured NBC’s Andrea Mitchell. “The data are just phone numbers and trunk lines; there's no content. It is put behind a wall. The only way it can be used is if there is strict scrutiny -- reasonable, articulable knowledge that this can connect to a terrorist attack, either under way or under planning or some conspiracy.”
But Paul portrayed the collection of telephone data as “an astounding assault on the Constitution. After revelations that the Internal Revenue Service targeted political dissidents and the Justice Department seized reporters' phone records, it would appear that this Administration has now sunk to a new low.”
Paul -- a potential contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016 -- noted that he’d offered an amendment last year that would have attached Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. But it was defeated -- and in fact got only 12 votes.
That vote revealed the way terrorism can alter the political lineup; only two other GOP senators supported Paul on his amendment: Mike Lee of Utah and Dean Heller of Nevada. The majority of the support came from Democrats -- nine lawmakers, including Merkley and Tester -- voted for Paul’s amendment.

NBC's Pete Williams reports on the secret collection of phone records and why this practice was renewed. Williams also explains why the White House hasn't officially confirmed or denied this report.

On terrorism policies, Paul appears to be a minority within his own party.
On issues like abortion, gun control or “Obamacare,” Democrats Merkley and Feinstein have voted the same -- and on the opposite side from Paul. But on the collection of telephone data the Democrats clash.
Terrorism policies have a way of the jarring the usual left-versus-right categories: instead, it’s libertarian mistrust of executive power (Merkley and Paul) versus a willingness to allow extraordinary steps to defeat and deter terrorists (Graham and Feinstein).
This extends to the issue of using drones overseas against terrorist suspects. Referring to conservative Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, Democrat Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota noted in April that “You know we’re in strange territory when Sen. Cruz and 

NSA and Eric Holder under Obama's orders to track Verizon phones

New controversy facing the Obama administration: London Guardian reports that NSA has collected Verizon phone records… Questions we have about the story… Is the support for immigration waning or not? New NBC/WSJ poll numbers show a slight majority (52%) favoring a pathway to citizenship… Also from NBC/WSJ poll: Health care law’s unpopularity hits new highs… And Obama heads to North Carolina, to deliver remarks on the economy and education at 2:55 pm ET. 

By Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Brooke Brower

*** A new controversy facing the Obama administration: The big political story that’s driving the day in Washington comes courtesy of the London Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald. “The National Security Agency is currently collecting the telephone records of millions of US customers of Verizon, one of America's largest telecoms providers, under a top secret court order issued in April. The order, a copy of which has been obtained by the Guardian, requires Verizon on an ‘ongoing, daily basis’ to give the NSA information on all telephone calls in its systems, both within the US and between the US and other countries.” While not specifically confirming any aspects of the Guardian story, a senior Obama administration defended the practice. This official maintains the following: 1) Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court orders (what this appears to be) are classified; 2) the government isn’t listening in on calls -- rather, it’s acquiring data like telephone numbers and lengths of calls; and 3) there’s a “robust legal regime" governing these activities, which includes Congress and the courts. Make no mistake: This will only further the political debate between civil libertarians and the national-security community.

Sen. Lindsey Graham addresses Attorney General Eric Holder Thursday over a recent report that the NSA is collecting people's Verizon phone numbers.

*** Questions we have: It’s important to note that we don’t have the full story here, but we have plenty of questions. Was Verizon the only carrier issued this order? (Highly unlikely.) Was the motivation behind collecting these telephone records a current national-security threat? Or was it something like building a database -- to be able to pursue future threats? NBC counter-terrorism expert Michael Leiter, on “TODAY”, seemed to hint that this could be more about maintaining a database than anything else. But the fact is, the Obama administration has been silent on this issue for years, which brings up this question: Is this consistent with what Candidate Obama promised in 2007 and 2008? One caveat worth pointing out, however: The 2005-2006 NSA controversy surrounding the Bush administration involved wiretapping, not phone records.  

Saul Loeb / AFP - Getty Images

President Barack Obama walks down the West Wing Colonnade to announce that current UN Ambassador Susan Rice will replace outgoing National Security Adviser Tom Donilon, in the Rose Garden of the White House, June 5, 2013.

*** Is support for immigration waning or not? Our new NBC/WSJ poll shows a slight majority -- 52% -- saying they favor a proposed pathway to allow undocumented immigrants to become U.S. citizens. This is a drop from our April poll, when 64% said they supported this pathway. But a note of caution: The wording on our question changed. In April, we asked: “There is a proposal to create a pathway to citizenship that would allow foreigners who have jobs but are staying illegally in the United States the opportunity to eventually become legal American citizens.” In our new poll, we excluded the words “who have jobs.” Our pollsters believe it’s significant that a majority still backs the pathway even after the language change. More importantly, when told in the current poll that the proposed pathway to citizenship includes requirements to pay fines, back taxes and pass a background security check, the percentage favoring it jumps up to 65%, including 58% of Republicans.  
*** Upset or happy if Congress doesn’t pass a bill? But if you’re a supporter of the immigration reform legislation, you might be a little troubled by this finding: Respondents are divided if they want Congress to pass a bill this year. Per the poll, 47% say they would be upset if Congress doesn't pass a bill, and that includes a majority of Democrats (54%). But an equal 47% say they wouldn't be upset if Congress doesn’t pass immigration legislation, and that includes a majority of Republicans (53%). (Strikingly, the partisan divisions have flipped since this question was last asked in 2006, when former President George W. Bush was supporting comprehensive immigration reform. Back then, more than six-in-10 Republicans said they would be upset if immigration reform didn't pass, and an almost equal percentage of Democrats -- who were out of power in the White House -- said they wouldn't be upset. Yet note that there’s not a whole lot of intensity to these current immigration numbers: 21% said they would be VERY UPSET if Congress doesn’t pass legislation, and 26% said they would be NOT AT ALL UPSET if that happens. But compare that to a gun question we also asked: 34% said they would be VERY UPSET if Congress doesn’t pass a background-check law, versus 31% who said NOT AT ALL UPSET. Bottom line: The immigration debate isn’t as highly charged as the gun debate.
*** Health care law’s unpopularity reaches new highs: Meanwhile, just months before President Barack Obama's signature health-care law fully goes into effect next year, it remains unpopular with the American public, according to the new NBC/WSJ poll, with 49 percent saying they believe the law is a bad idea. That’s the highest number recorded on this question since the poll began measuring it in 2009. Just 37% say the plan is a good idea. The poll also finds that 38 percent say they and their family will be worse off under the health-care law, which also is the highest percentage on this question that dates back to 2010. By comparison, 19% say they'll be better off, and 39% say the law won't make much of a difference. The poll, however, shows deep divisions by political party and health insurance status. By a 35%-to-11% margin, Democrats say they'll be better off under the health-care law. But Republicans say they'll be worse off, 67% to 4%. What's more, those who currently don't have health insurance have a more positive view of the health-care law than those who have insurance -- either through individual purchase or through their employer. Bottom line here: The Obama White House has a massive PR problem with health care. The biggest reason: Opponents of this law have been very vocal, while supporters have done very little to drum up support. The president doesn’t sell it that often, and many arms of the Democratic Party essentially avoid it. Politics abhors a vacuum, and opponents -- not supporters -- have filled the health-care vacuum.

Advertise | AdChoices

*** Carolina in mind: Lastly, President Obama heads to Mooresville, NC, where he’ll deliver remarks on the economy and education at 2:55 pm ET. Per the White House, Obama “will travel to Mooresville Middle School in Mooresville, North Carolina, to deliver remarks and see first hand the school's cutting edge curriculum that maximizes the benefits of technology and digital learning.”  

IMPORTANT PROMOTIONAL MESSAGE (!!!): Love politics? Have a cell phone camera? Want to be on national TV? Then you should send in a good morning greeting to your friends at The Daily Rundown. It couldn’t be easier and everything you need to know is right here:

Oak Park Shooting - The once working class quiet suburb falls to black crime

Oak Park police are investigating a shooting in the near west suburb tonight, but releasing few details.

The shooting was reported on the 900 block of Taylor Avenue after 6 p.m. Thursday. Police would not offer details, but did confirm that someone was shot.

To read more click here

Second City Cop celebrates birthday

Eight Years?

Omaha Nebraska Officer Puts His Gun to the Back of My Head

This story was shared via CopBlock.org’s ‘submit‘ page by Nick Mason.
Some friends and I were standing at Qt Gas Station on 103rd and Fort street on 5/14/13 around 2:15 am. We had just gotten off our bikes and we all went in and bought some food and drinks.
We were standing there eating and talking when two officers pulled up in a black and white Chevy Tahoe. I saw that the officers were looking at my firearm that was on my side in a holster. I didn’t really think anything of it because I have an open/concealed carry permit, so I just went on with what I was doing.
I saw that they started walking our way, but I was still not worried about it. The officers approached us asking everyone how we were doing. One of the officers then walked in between all of us. The officer then proceeded to walk behind me without saying anything more. He then turned and said, “Who do you think you are?” then pulled his firearm out and pointed it about an inch from the back of my head, like I was being executed, and ordered me to get face down on the ground. Not knowing what was going on, I did what was ordered of me.
He then told us that he never wanted to see our bikes parked the way they were again. We had three bikes between two spots, in an empty lot.
I had bought some sunflower seeds and was eating them prior to the officers arriving, and was spitting them on the ground. While I was face down, he saw the sunflower seed shells and asked me if I “really wanted to go to jail for littering.” I told him no and that I would clean them up. He then stated that he knew I was “going to be picking them up.”
He then ordered the other three bikers I was with to “leave, right now.” They had to put on all their riding gear but the officer was very impatient and proceeded to ask them why they were still there. He then ordered them to leave again.
The other officer came up to me and disarmed me while asking if it was loaded. I told him yes, that it was. They then asked me if I had any ID on myself. I told them yes and that it was in my left front pocket of my pants. The officer that disarmed me came over and took my wallet. Then while both officers were searching through my wallet, asked me if I had my permit in my wallet. As before, I said yes and told them what the permit looked like and where it was in the wallet.
The officer who grabbed my firearm then ran my ID, my permit, and the serial number on my firearm. The officer that had pointed his firearm at the back of my head was proceeding to call a detective. He asked the detective if Nebraska honored a gun permit from Iowa. He then stated to the detective that they had pulled up to the QT and a couple of people on bikes where standing around. It also appeared that one had a firearm so he approached and he did, in fact, have a firearm on his side.
That officer said that the detective asked how I was acting and he told him that I was not acting in a suspicious manner. I did not act any differently when he approached me, either. I was cooperating fully and was not causing a problem at all.
They then asked me why I felt the need to carry a firearm other then the fact that I have the 2nd Amendment right to do so. I stated “I have the firearm and the permit, so why not.” The officer that pulled his firearm then asked me if I ever felt that my life was endangered on my bike. I said yes and that “I have had a bunch of people swerve at me while I have been riding.” Later the other officer said, “Earlier you said that you carry your firearm on the bike because people swerve at you.” I said “No, he asked me if I have ever felt endangered on my bike and I said I have due to people swerving at me.”
The officer that pulled his firearm then told me I could sit up; he also told me to make sure all my stuff was there and that I could go.

Congressman Stockmann letter to the people

  Barack Obama has announced that on June 3 he will sign a UN treaty banning guns and registering gun owners.

   And he will twist the US Senate to approve it, just like he did with ObamaCare and the NDAA.

   I just signed a letter to Obama warning him to not sign this UN gun grab.
   They claim it only targets "arms dealers, " but it would also require nations to ban many popular types of personal firearms.

   Not angry yet?
   The text of the UN treaty requires nations to record and track all guns...

   ...and all "end users" of guns.
   That means Obama's UN gun scheme would create a national registry of private gun owners.

   Even worse, Obama would submit his list of gun owners to the UN's "international secretariat.” 

   The right to keep and bear arms is granted by God and protecting from government aggression by the Constitution.  It is not subject to the whims of global totalitarians massed in New York City.

   I will not back down.

   We must not let Obama literally hand over our gun rights to the UN.
   Please go here to chip in $10 or more to help me mount an aggressive campaign to defeat Obama's UN gun grab and turn over the names of all US gun owners to the UN's "international secretariat.”