Home » 2010 » June (Page 9)

Latest Freedom Of Religion Auctions

Hey, check out these auctions:
[eba kw=”Freedom of Religion” num=”2″ ebcat=”all”]
Cool, arent they?

Tucker Bounds on Palin’s National Security Experience


Campbell Brown interviews Tucker Bounds on Sarah Palin’s national security experience

Deteriorating Police Relations Caused by the Freedom of Information Act

As a result of the Freedom of Information Act, police are finding it harder to get the information they need from various companied and organisation.

A local security office of a telephone company referred an illegal telephone call case to an FBI resident agency. However, the company refused to furnish any data concerning the principals involved in the violation without a subpoena for telephone company records.

The resident office of the DEA in a southern state reported that Western Union in their area now refuses to divulge any information except by subpoena which cites the specific information in question.

A west coast telephone company informed the U.S. Secret Service that whenever the company releases information about a nonpublished number, they will immediately notify the subscriber that an inquiry was made and who made the inquiry. Consequently, agents must now decide whether to obtain the information and thus alert the subscriber, or not use this important investigative tool.

A forged U.S. Treasury check was used to pay a telephone bill. The telephone company supervisor refused to furnish U.S. Secret Service Agents with any information about the individual who negotiated the check or the telephone account involved. Although the U.S. Secret Service Agent pointed out that the telephone company was a victim in this case, the company refused to furnish any data without a court order. The Secret Service Agent said that this information would not have been withheld prior to enactment of the Freedom of Information Act.

In the field of arson investigations, major insurance companies and the Fire Marshal Reporting Service have stated they will provide no information to federal law enforcement agencies except under subpoena. They advise their legal departments believe this position is necessary for protection against civil suit, in the event of an Freedom of Information Act disclosure.

In a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations investigation involving numerous subjects in an arson-for-profit scheme in which insurance companies are defrauded after the insured property is burned, at least 15 insurance companies, numerous insurance claims adjusting firms, and insurance agents have refused or have been most reluctant to furnish files regarding losses and coverage because of the universal fear that the information furnished could be obtained by the insured in an Freedom of Information Act disclosure which the insured might use against the insurance company or firm in a civil suit. The FBI has been required to obtain federal grand jury subpoenas to secure the desired information, which in every instance caused delay in the investigation. Many of these firms cited widespread news publicity resulting from Freedom of Information Act disclosures as cause for their total lack of confidence that the FBI would maintain information in confidence.

Sammy is constantly researching interesting information and writing articles to make it easy for his readers to understand.


To see more of his writing, visit his articles about criminal court record searches and social security death records sites.

Latest Church And State Auctions

Hey, check out these auctions:
[eba kw=”Church and State” num=”2″ ebcat=”all”]
Cool, arent they?

Conservatives: where does it say in the constitution that business enterprise has the same rights as a citizen?

because that’s what every corporation is allowed to do here: if one forms a corporation, than that corporation, for legal purposes, can act as a citizen.

now where is that protected in the constitution? or is this more typical capitalist/conservative vitriol in adding stuff to the constitution that isn’t there?
NO WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT SAY COMPANIES CAN HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS CITIZENS!!!
@anthony: but at the same token, the government can’t just grant citizenship to non-living entities.
@mark: it’s a private institution, they can give aid to whoever they feel, if it’s non-profit.

Should Religion Stay in the Pledge?

Can you still remember all of the words to the Pledge of Allegiance? Most of us recited the pledge every single school day from Kindergarten all the way through the sixth grade. Some junior high and high schools also required a daily flag salute and the recitation. This being the case, can you remember all of the words? Can you still rattle it off without thinking like most of us could do by the middle of our kindergarten year?

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.” Hey! I can do it!

It’s funny how those two little worlds “under God” have caused such a ruckus. Many people insist that our country was founded on the idea of the freedom of religion. Others insist that forcing children to recite the words “under god” is forcing a single religion down school children’s throats—a religion that might not be taught or encouraged at home.

A few years ago a Congressperson caused quite a stir when he recited the entire pledge—without the words “under God.” Suddenly people were screaming that he wasn’t patriotic at all.

What do you think? Do you think that religion should play a part in our politics, or should the two be kept completely separate? Would it surprise you to learn that the original pledge did not contain religion at all? It was added in the 1950s as homage to Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. The Washington Post’s website has published an article that claims it is time to take the phrase back out of the pledge.

When the phrase was added to the pledge, the primary religion in the United States was one of the Protestant Sects and only five percent of the population did not claim any single religion. Today the United States has a much larger variety of religions within its borders. Today, there are people who claim Buddhism, Hinduism, Atheism, Muslim and Wicca (among a few others) as well as those who claim traditional Christian and Jewish sects as their religions.

The Washington post agues that “under god” and religion be stricken from the pledge because the greatest threat to the United States is not those who are “godless” but those who are “fundamentalist” in their religion—willing to harm or kill anyone who does not subscribe to their exact belief system. The Post argues that our beliefs about religion are not what set us apart from other nations, but that our tolerance of each religion is what makes us unique.

What do you think about the topic? Do you think that the pledge should acknowledge religion and, if so, how should that acknowledgement of religion happen? Not everyone is of a monotheistic faith. How do you incorporate each religion without the pledge taking five or six hours to recite?

For more information on religion, visit http://www.religionmicroblog.com and http://www.jewishmicroblog.com.

Is national security a concern when it comes to electing a president?

It seems that a few of the Higher ups have some concern about Obama because of his lack of experience regarding national security. He actually has no experience when it comes to this. What do you think?

Courthouse becomes church headquarters

Courthouse becomes church headquarters
HAMMOND — The stately building at the corner of Oakley and State streets is back in full operation after being shuttered in 2002. The former federal courthouse, built in 1906, now houses the administration offices of First Baptist Church of Hammond. “We desperately needed a central hub of operations,” said Eddie Wilson, the church’s media and public relations director. “First Baptist Church …

Read more on Post-Tribune

The Drug Enforcement Agency and the Freedom of Information Act

The DEA undertook a detailed analysis of the effect of the Freedom of Information Act on DEA’s investigative operations. Since 1977, reports had been received from various DEA field offices suggesting that the Freedom of Information Act was adversely affecting various types of DEA investigations. Nearly all of these reports indicated that the Freedom of Information Act-related effect on criminal investigations, on DEA’s relations with the private sector, and on the relationship between DEA and state and local police departments was primarily the result of the inability of the Federal government to offer credible assurances of confidentiality.

The Freedom of Information Act was enacted in 1966 to allow any person to request any record from a Federal agency. The statute, however, included nine exemptions which were intended to serve the protectable interests of the Federal government, private financial interests, and individual privacy rights. In 1974, the law was significantly amended to require Federal agencies to comply with strict procedures in the administrative handling of Freedom of Information Act requests and to make available certain previously exempt information relating to national defense and foreign policy as well as Federal law enforcement operations.

As currently written, the Freedom of Information Act allows Federal law enforcement agencies to withhold information if it is part of an investigative record compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that its disclosure would:

* Interfere with enforcement proceedings.

* Deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial Juris- diction.

* Constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

* Disclose the identity of a confidential source and, in the case of a record compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation, or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, confidential information furnished only by the confidential source.

* Disclose investigative techniques and procedures.

* Endanger the life or physicsd safety of law enforcement personnel.

However, reports received from DEA field offices suggested that the law was having a detrimental effect on enforcement efforts. DEA then initiated a study to measure the impact of the Freedom of Information Act to the agency’s overall enforcement efforts.

DEA Agents participating in the study clearly indicated that information disclosures made pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act are adversely affecting their investigative efforts. Agents reported that intelligence information is not nearly so forthcoming as similar information prior to the enactment of the Freedom of Information Act.

Sammy is constantly researching interesting information and writing articles to make it easy for his readers to understand.


To see more of his writing, visit his articles about social security number search sites.

The Freedom To Eat!

The Freedom To Eat! – The Ultimate Guide To Gaining Control Over Your Weight And Your Life. Discover The Ten Steps To Lose Weight Forever, Have The Freedom To Eat What You Want, Discover And Love Who You Are, And Love Your Life.
The Freedom To Eat!