(CNSNews.com) - The federal government has now piled up more debt since Election Day 2008 than it did under all presidents from George Washington through Bill Clinton, according to official debt numbers published by the U.S. Treasury.
Nick Iversen's insight:
This article is about our national debt and how it has grown drastically since the 2008 election. Compiling over 5.5 trillion dollars in a four year span
Capitalizing on a little-noticed component of the federal budget, a number of former U.S. presidents are enjoying the retirement benefit of millions of taxpayer dollars, including expenses for rent, postage, phone, and office staff, and even their satellite television bills.
Nick Iversen's insight:
This article is about former president Bill Clinton and how our taxpayer dollars are paying for his television and other things
An FBI operation apparently violated the First Amendment rights of hundreds of Muslims by using a paid spy to illegally monitor several Californian mosques based solely on their religion, a federal lawsuit has been filed. Filed on behalf of three Muslims, the lawsuit accuses FBI agents and employees of paying Craig Monteilh to go undercover, record conversations and infiltrate mosques to rule out potential terrorists. This is violating the Muslims 1st Amendment of freedom of religion. It is unconstitutional because there could be innocent people practicing their religion, and getting spied on for it. Also, it is illegally done, making matters even worse.
This is an article about how the FBI violated the rights of hundreds of muslims. They paid a spy to monitor several mosques in California to see if there was any terroristic threats. This is based solely on religion, which violates the first amendment right of freedom of religion. The spy recorded conversations.
The story of sheriff's deputies in San Luis Obispo, California conspiring to fake a police report and invent a reason why they violated the 4th amendment. A man was target shooting on his own propertand they cops lied about what really happened.
This is a story about police in California who violated the 4th amendment. A man was target shooting on his own private property in a rural area. A neighbor called the police because he heard the shots, and the man was arrested for and they searched his home without probable cause.
Laptop password demanded, accused of fraud women's encrypted laptop taken by prosacutors.
Nick Iversen's insight:
This article tells the story of Ramona Fricosu who is charged of fraudulent realestate transactions. The governemnt was trying to force her to open her encrypted laptop which required a password. This violates her 5th amendment rights by them forcing her to incriminate herself
Analysis: Recent stories have shown bloggers and reporters are posting pictures up and doing things such as videotaping police. Emily Good of Rochester, NY was recently caught by a cop when videotaping him off of her camera. He went over to her and told her to stop and stated it was illegal. When taken to court, she was later charged with obstruction of justice for arguing with a police officer. As it turned out, the police officer was wrong. Videotaping the police and anyone else in a public place is perfectly legal in New York state. The chief of police apologized later on and found out that the 1st amendment does protect these citizens who are deciding to do this. I don't agree with the 1st amendment toward this situation. I feel that everybody should have their own privacy, especially a cop. Why should somebody be able to videotape somebody else or take pictures of somebody else if it isn't okay with the person being captured on camera? I know that if somebody was videotaping me or taking pictures of me, i would feel that its against my personal property and i would definitely say something. I do agree with the 1st amendment, but when it comes to invading personal property, i feel its not right.
this article relates to the 1st amendment and freedom of speech. this article is asking if freedom of speech applies to internet bloggers
This story is interesting because it deals with an issue that is very current. Police have been prosecuting people for taking photos, or videos of them, saying it is against the law. This article explains why they are wrong and have the first amendment protects this right of ours.
The formery chief executive officer of National Public Radio (NPR). He believes that the network would be better off wihout government support. Although only 10% of NPR's money comes from the government, he believes removing those subsidies would increase NPR's credibility.
When George Washington became President of the United States in 1789, there were no political parties.Political parties first emerged during Washington’s first term in office with the Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Party in 1791 and in the following year, the formation of the Anti-Federalist Party or Democratic-Republicans under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson.
The two political parties formulated their views of how government ought to operate in the new republic.
At the end of Washington’s first term, as he was preparing to retire and go back to Mt. Vernon to just be a farmer again, the leaders of the opposing parties both wanted him to reconsider with Hamilton and Jefferson pleading with Washington to stay on for a second term.
Jefferson is credited as stating: “North and South will hang together if they have you to hang on.”
Washington finally consented to such sentiments and was again the obvious choice of the Electoral College as they re-elected him in February of 1793.
This article talks about how during Washingtons presidency, two political parties emerged. The Federalist and the Anti-Federalists. It goes through how Washington was coaxed into a second term, and what happened with the parties during Washingtons 2nd term
Judge rules that warrentless cellphone tracking is in violation and is unconstitutional.
Nick Iversen's insight:
This short article talks about how a judge in texas believes that warrantless cellphone tracking violates the 4th amendment. These records include the date, time, call number, and location of call. The Federal governemnt argues that the 4th amendment does not cover cell phones
Congress' latest attempt at a bill that affects the way people use the Internet has many scared, with some calling the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) is "worse than SOPA," the bill that caused widespread Internet outrage and blackouts before ultimately being shelved. Experts say the danger level associated with CISPA depends on the answer to one question: Which Constitution amendment do you care about more, the First or the Fourth?
While the Stop Online Piracy Act dealt with censoring sites that illegally hosted copyrighted content, CISPA is designed to help companies fight cyber crime—potentially in exchange for helping the federal government spy on users.
"It's a completely different issue [than SOPA]," says Jim Dempsey, vice president for public policy at the Center for Democracy and Technology. "This is about government monitoring. [SOPA] is about the First amendment, [CISPA] is about the Fourth, but they both take a legitimate problem and try to tackle it with an overbroad solution."
This article talks about CISPA (Cyber intelligence Sharing and Intelligence Act). The main goal of CISPA is to help fight cyber crime- stock foreign governments and hackers from stealing info from American corporations. It talks about how the governemnt and companies could come to a kind of "standoff". You give me one thing, ill give you the other because technically, the Act does not say companies have to share data with government, but on the other side, it doesnt say governement has to share cybersecurity secrets with the companies.
This is interesting because it talks about Goucerneur Morris, the man who wrote the first line of the constitution "we the people". It is interesting to think about who exactly that phrase covers these days.