About Contact Archives RSS Columns Photos

America, 1. ACLU, 0.

By Michelle Malkin  •  February 19, 2008 10:28 AM

posters005.jpg
Photoshop by reader John McG., 6/2006.

You may recall in December 2005 when the blabbermouths at the NYTimes revealed a classified program set up by the Bush administration monitor terrorist communications in the US (which inspired an entire gallery of media blabbermouth posters like the one above). The ACLU quickly and literally followed suit to kill the program.

Well, the outcome of their obstructionist efforts is just across the wires:

The Supreme Court has rejected a challenge to the Bush administration’s domestic spying program. The justices’ decision Tuesday includes no comment explaining why they turned down the appeal from the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU wanted the court to allow a lawsuit by the group and individuals over the warrantless wiretapping program. An appeals court dismissed the suit because the plaintiffs cannot prove their communications have been monitored. The government has refused to turn over information about the closely guarded program that could reveal who has been under surveillance.

Reuters has more:

The American Civil Liberties Union had asked the justices to hear the case after a lower court ruled the ACLU, other groups and individuals that sued the government had no legal right to do so because they could not prove they had been affected by the program.

The civil liberties group also asked the nation’s highest court to make clear that Bush does not have the power under the U.S. Constitution to engage in intelligence surveillance within the United States that Congress has expressly prohibited.

“The president is bound by the laws that Congress enacts. He may disagree with those laws, but he may not disobey them,” Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, said in the appeal.

Bush authorized the program to monitor international phone calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens without first obtaining a court warrant. The program’s disclosure in December 2005 caused a political uproar among Democrats, some Republicans and civil liberties activists. The administration abandoned the program about a year ago, putting it under the surveillance court that Congress created more than 30 years ago. The high court’s action means that Bush will be able to disregard whatever legislative eavesdropping restrictions Congress adopts as there will be no meaningful judicial review, the ACLU attorneys said.

The journalists, scholars, attorneys and national advocacy groups that filed the lawsuit said the illegal surveillance had disrupted their ability to communicate with sources and clients.

You can’t connect the dots if you don’t collect them.

Flashback: The left’s selective outrage over privacy invasion.

Look for the ACLU to go after Amtrack’s newly announced random bag search policy.

***
Background:

Federal Judge Rules Bush Surveillance Program Unconstitutional
Newsflash: NSA Doing Its Job
Finally: Justice Dept. Opens NSA Leak Probe
In Defense of the NSA
The New York Times Strikes Again
NSA and the Law: What the Times Didn’t Print
Red Alert: Chicken Littles on the Loose
Sorry NYT, America is OK With NSA

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

  1. The Jawa Report
  2.   SCOTUS Says Wiretapping Terrorists Legal Again! — Pirate’s Cove
  3. BelchSpeak » Post Topic » Supreme Court to ACLU re: TSP- STFU, STFD
  4. Neocon News » ACLU smacked by Supreme Court & Predictions on FISA
  5. SCOTUS TURNS AWAY ACLU LAWSUIT « Texas Hold ‘Em Blogger
  6. Blue Collar Republican » Blog Archive » Blog Burst - February 20, 2008
  7. Stop The ACLU Blogburst: Supremes Reject Domestic Spying Case | Stuck On Stupid

Trackback URL

Comments

  1. #1
    On February 19th, 2008 at 10:30 am, procopy said:

    U.S.A., U.S.A., U.S.A.

  2. #2
    On February 19th, 2008 at 10:30 am, ACHefty said:

    So there. Let’s start concentrating on protecting Americans and their civil liberties before we worry about those bent on our destruction.

    OK?

    Now, Go to your room!

  3. #3
    On February 19th, 2008 at 10:31 am, ajmontana said:

    HA HA HA…..

  4. #4
    On February 19th, 2008 at 10:33 am, heroyalwhyness said:

    The Supreme Court has rejected a challenge to the Bush administration’s domestic spying program.

    Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

  5. #5
    On February 19th, 2008 at 10:36 am, Dimsdale said:

    Just another reason we need to have control over the selection of SCOTUS judges, even if it is McCain (insert nose holding here).

    The ACLU has done more to degrade, dehumanize, weaken, and demoralize (in all senses of the word) the United States than all the declared enemies of the U.S. ever dreamt of.

    As an aside, during the Kelo court case (eminient domain gone wild), I wrote to both the USACLU and its Connecticut chapter. Both said they “were not taking a position on this issue.” No concern for people losing their homes on the whim of the government, but plenty of time to harrass (pronounced “her-ass” by the way) the Boy Scouts and harmless displays of the Ten Commandments.

    The ACLU is staffed by anti American vermin, IMHO.

    I know, I know, stop sugarcoating it!

  6. #6
    On February 19th, 2008 at 10:36 am, NeoConNews said:

    Wheeee. I love how it had no comment whatsoever. Let them stew in their 1984 juices for a while.

  7. #7
    On February 19th, 2008 at 10:37 am, Gabe said:

    Great. Thank God for Roberts and Alito.

    Now all of you stating you will not under any circumstances vote for McCain, have you changed your opinion yet?

    We could have three Supreme Court justices chosen by the Hussein Obamas, who love our country about as much as Al Qaeda, should those commis get into the White House.

  8. #8
    On February 19th, 2008 at 10:48 am, Marshall Russ said:

    Gabe#7
    On the nose.

  9. #9
    On February 19th, 2008 at 10:49 am, terrig said:

    Double that Gabe in # 7.

  10. #10
    On February 19th, 2008 at 10:59 am, TexasTiger said:

    Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, said in the appeal.

    The ACLU has a Nation Security Project…

    like Willie Sutton had a Bank Security Project

    like Hannibal Lecter had a Right-to-Life Project

    like Bin Laden has a Visit America Project

    Oy vey!

  11. #11
    On February 19th, 2008 at 11:00 am, RaisedRight said:

    We could have three Supreme Court justices chosen by the Hussein Obamas, who love our country about as much as Al Qaeda, should those commis get into the White House.

    Gabe - Worse, we could have three Supreme Court justices who love our country about as much as Michelle Obama.

  12. #12
    On February 19th, 2008 at 11:13 am, hatelibs said:

    Excellent point thant I keep mentioning to those (like me) who are frustrated about McCain. THE SUPREME COURT!!!

    At least with McCain there is a chance to have someone like Roberts or Alito. With Obama or Clinton there is NO chance! We get more Ruth Ginsbergs (a total linatic) and it won’t be 4 years to correct that problem, it will be a generation. Remember that people!

  13. #13
    On February 19th, 2008 at 11:14 am, On-my-soap-box said:

    The journalists, scholars, attorneys and national advocacy groups that filed the lawsuit said the illegal surveillance had disrupted their ability to communicate with sources and clients.

    By their own admission, candidates for a wire tap if I have ever heard of one.

  14. #14
    On February 19th, 2008 at 11:15 am, SHoward said:

    Cue the Trolls in 3….2….1….

  15. #15
    On February 19th, 2008 at 11:17 am, Alphonse said:

    Next we have to go after bloggers who criticize the Commander-in-Chief and weaken him in the face of the Enemy. More freedom = less security.

  16. #16
    On February 19th, 2008 at 11:18 am, zorro said:

    Thanks for this great news Michelle. I love when the hate-America-leftist are handed a resounding smack down like this. Somehow, the coffee just tastes better…

  17. #17
    On February 19th, 2008 at 11:31 am, tre said:

    This is great. It seems often groups cave in when the American Communist Lawyers Union just THREATENS a lawsuit. It’s great when someone challenges them, and wins!

  18. #18
    On February 19th, 2008 at 11:32 am, Latino said:

    I cannot express - in clean language - the deep, abiding and utter contempt I have for the ACLU and anyone who tries to obstruct our national security in these times.

  19. #19
    On February 19th, 2008 at 11:32 am, JohnW said:

    I’m confused, and if someone can clear this up for me I’d appreciate it.

    I read in this article, and hear on NPR all the time, about “the President’s domestic wiretapping program.” Is this the program where the NSA monitors the communications of suspected foreign terrorists, and keeps listening even if they call/are called by someone in America? Or is it some other program they are talking about?

    Because if it is that program, then “domestic wiretapping” is a wild misnomer.

  20. #20
    On February 19th, 2008 at 11:33 am, On-my-soap-box said:

    On February 19th, 2008 at 11:15 am, SHoward said:
    Cue the Trolls in 3….2….1….

    ROFL Perfect timing.

  21. #21
    On February 19th, 2008 at 11:38 am, TXRose said:

    Not just the Supreme Court but also the 10th Amendment. The government
    has no right to create national healthcare! Then, there is premature withdrawal
    from Iraq. We will wind up fighting them here if either one of the socialists is
    elected. That doesn’t even take into account that OTHER exgovernor of AR that
    wants to get into the White House. Hold your nose people, because what we
    get otherwise could be a lot worse than McCain. ( You might also want to
    remember that one of the big things that got G.W.Bush elected was that he
    could reach across the aisle here in TX.)

  22. #22
    On February 19th, 2008 at 11:40 am, SHoward said:

    Yeah, Soap, sometimes it’s better to be lucky than smart. I couldn’t have planned that one any better……

  23. #23
    On February 19th, 2008 at 11:41 am, winemkr said:

    War has been declared on the United States, we have been repeatedly attacked at home and abroad. Thousands of our fellow Americans have been butchered in New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington. Our embassies around the world have been threatened, blown up, and seized.

    Our allies have been threatened with mass extinction and the western way of life around the globe has been systematically impinged on a daily basis with intolerant demands upon a tolerant way of life.

    Undue respect and consideration has been given to the enemy.

    Thank god for a wise US Supreme Court.

    In fact, the appointment of judges is why I will be voting for McCain. Can you imagine a Supreme Court with Obama or Clinton appointees.

  24. #24
    On February 19th, 2008 at 11:42 am, LarryD said:

    On-my-soap-box (#13) has an excellent point.

    If the ACLU claims of standing are true, then the ACLU is in communication with terrorists outside the US. This is like being in communiction with the Nazis during WWII. Grounds for warrants, seems to me.

  25. #25
    On February 19th, 2008 at 11:48 am, On-my-soap-box said:

    LarryD,

    The best part is… no warrants needed.

  26. #26
    On February 19th, 2008 at 11:50 am, DesertLover said:

    Supreme Court ruling leaves

    Americans
    Celebrating
    Laws being
    Upheld

    Leading to

    Attentive
    Citizens
    Laughing
    Uncontrollably

    GOTCHA ACLU !!!!

    :lol:

  27. #27
    On February 19th, 2008 at 11:56 am, On-my-soap-box said:

    Why do people support the ACLU? Money wasted. Fighting for terrorists rights while going after your president.

    Better to support ACLJ.

  28. #28
    On February 19th, 2008 at 12:00 pm, meatpieandtatters said:

    Fundamentally
    Un-
    American
    Civil
    Liberal
    Union

  29. #29
    On February 19th, 2008 at 12:04 pm, SHoward said:

    RE: #27,

    I may have an answer for ya, Soap. My old Doctor in Orlando was a card carrying supporter of the ACLU. He would tell me that there was nothing wrong with supporting individual liberties and protecting the little guy.

    What happens, methinks, is people that support them are naive. They actually believe that the ACLU really is for individual liberties, even while the cases they pursue may show something different. (ie: not supporting a school teacher that was fired for wearing a cross.) Then they turn around and vigorously fight for something that tends only to help out bad guys.

    Again, people get naive. That’s the only possible reason I can think of.

    -S

  30. #30
    On February 19th, 2008 at 12:06 pm, John Ansell said:

    Hey Pelosi, how was the wedding? Now get back to town and renew our program for our safety.

  31. #31
    On February 19th, 2008 at 12:06 pm, AlohaGuy said:

    The journalists, scholars, attorneys and national advocacy groups that filed the lawsuit said the illegal surveillance had disrupted their ability to communicate with sources and clients.

    Translation: We all need al-Qaeda to earn a huge living.

  32. #32
    On February 19th, 2008 at 12:07 pm, BKennedy said:

    ACLU:

    Anachronistic
    Communist
    Liberal
    Ugnauts

    Attacking
    Constitutional
    Liberties
    Unrelentingly

    Thank you Roberts and Alito.

  33. #33
    On February 19th, 2008 at 12:09 pm, md1964 said:

    The ACLU will not be happy until Several Million Americans are dead, and a City or two has been destroyed.

    ACLU has been voted Employee/Organization of the month by Al-Qaeda 22 out of 24 months the last two years. The New York Times twice has shattered their run with their reveiling of Top Secret Programs, told to them by undercover Anti-American Operatives in our government.

  34. #34
    On February 19th, 2008 at 12:09 pm, Marshall Russ said:

    JohnW#19 There is no basis in fact for the misnomer. The press picked it up because it was such a good tool for bashing Bush. They repeated it so often that most commentators don’t bother to correct it. I’ve heard Brit correct it and Bill.O’ states correctly that the ACLU hasn’t brought forward anyone with a case. It’s like Global Warming and Climate change. If you say it enough people don’t need facts. Liberals don’t need facts, they get in their way.

  35. #35
    On February 19th, 2008 at 12:15 pm, ctmom said:

    Finally, ACLU slapped down!

  36. #36
    On February 19th, 2008 at 12:16 pm, greenfairie said:

    Ha ha, ACLU!

    Indeed, the courts may be the only reason to vote for McCain.

  37. #37
    On February 19th, 2008 at 12:17 pm, Snooper said:

    What we need to do is replace all dhimmis and socialists, whether they be D, R or I, in congress with conservatives. Until then, we will have what we have now.

  38. #38
    On February 19th, 2008 at 12:17 pm, Insomniac said:

    I’Z IN YR LINEZ
    HEARN ALL YR CALLZ!

  39. #39
    On February 19th, 2008 at 12:20 pm, TXRose said:

    The ACLU and the NAACP are two of the worst things that ever happened to this
    country. While they may have started out with high ideals they have sunk to the
    lowest level possible. The ACLU has become an enemy of America and the NAACP
    has become an enemy of the Black community because they don’t want to win the
    cases they take on, they just want the issue and the publicity it brings. There are
    two organizations this country could do without.

  40. #40
    On February 19th, 2008 at 12:25 pm, CarpiJugulum said:

    Wow what a set back for the ACLU. I guess soon they may have to go back to chaseing ambulkances for their causes.

  41. #41
    On February 19th, 2008 at 12:28 pm, Jaded said:

    This is indeed great news…..

  42. #42
    On February 19th, 2008 at 12:33 pm, tacodawn said:

    SCOTUS I salute you!

  43. #43
    On February 19th, 2008 at 12:35 pm, AlohaGuy said:

    Roberts and Alito. Thank you conservatives everywhere for pushing for these guys.

  44. #44
    On February 19th, 2008 at 12:37 pm, John Ansell said:

    Authentic
    Crapweasels
    loathing
    USA

  45. #45
    On February 19th, 2008 at 12:45 pm, BKennedy said:

    The civil liberties group also asked the nation’s highest court to make clear that Bush does not have the power under the U.S. Constitution to engage in intelligence surveillance within the United States that Congress has expressly prohibited.

    Umm, Bush DOES have the power under the Constitution to survey any calls inside and outside the country in order to defend the nation. “Domestic spying program” is a misnomer. Bush is monitoring international calls.

    But don’t confuse Democrats with facts, and don’t tell them about sections of the constitution the supreme court hasn’t interpreted in their favor on yet. There is nothing in the Constitution that says the President needs Congress’ approval to defend and protect the US of A.

  46. #46
    On February 19th, 2008 at 12:47 pm, NBF said:

    McGangof14 will have no interest in appointing conservative judges.

    Conservative judges would through out McCain-Feingold on its ear. McCain would not stomach this.

    It’s obvious.

  47. #47
    On February 19th, 2008 at 12:48 pm, Regulus said:

    What happens, methinks, is people that support them are naive. They actually believe that the ACLU really is for individual liberties, even while the cases they pursue may show something different.

    Well put. As a test of people’s gullibility, an organization (I forget which one) conducted a door-to-door “petition drive” asking people to back a Constitutional amendment repealing the first 10 amendments. “Help us get rid of the crime-coddling ‘Bill of Rights’” was the slogan.

    And most people who were approached actually signed the damned thing, one woman gushing, “Thank God for what you’re doing!”

    Small wonder why a perniciously anti-American organization masquerading under the guise of “civil rights” can get so many people to either mindlessly accept or even support what they’re doing to this country.

    And speaking of 2008-2012 potential Justice appointments, I believe that Ruth Ginsberg was a high-level officer of the ACLU before ol’ Bubba nominated her for the Supreme Court.

    His wife the Saul Alinsky disciple, or “The Messiah” with a Senate voting record to the left of Teddy Kennedy’s, would like the opportunity to do ol’ Bubba one better. A chilling reminder that “elections have consequences” if there ever was one.

  48. #48
    On February 19th, 2008 at 12:48 pm, Ombre Rose said:

    On February 19th, 2008 at 10:36 am, Dimsdale said:
    Just another reason we need to have control over the selection of SCOTUS judges, even if it is McCain (insert nose holding here).

    If it is McCain, you have the “control” of the Gang of 14, McCain Feingold, McCain Shamnesty, Juan Hernandez, Jerry Perenchio, Warren Rudman and David Souter, co-author of McCain Feingold and 2000 McCain Presidential Campaign manager Fred Thompson, who voted on Bill Clinton’s Impeachment TO THE LEFT OF THE ENTIRE SUPREME COURT … so, I don’t know about you, but that just does absolutely NOTHING to make me feel better about the courts and other appointments being in the hands of a SO-CALLED Republican.
    McCain won’t risk someone who might even THINK about overturning McCain Feingold or McCain Kennedy Shamnesty!

    I won’t sign on the dotted line to empower THAT.

  49. #49
    On February 19th, 2008 at 12:51 pm, NBF said:

    #46: That should be “throw out”. I need to start drinking coffee

  50. #50
    On February 19th, 2008 at 12:53 pm, Ombre Rose said:

    The ACLU is staffed by anti American vermin, IMHO.
    I know, I know, stop sugarcoating it!

    And John McCain endorsed THEIR standards fro how the FOREIGN TERRORISTS should be tried on American soil with full American citi zenship privileges AS THEIR RIGHT, before a civilian court.

    No doubt with Johnny Sutton prosecuting the soldiers who apprehended them in action.

  51. #51
    On February 19th, 2008 at 12:57 pm, cpodug said:

    Ombre Rose said: No doubt with Johnny Sutton prosecuting the soldiers who apprehended them in action.

    Yet another reason for having a shoot-to-kill policy when dealing with terrorists. All the better to speed them on their way to their 72 virgins.

  52. #52
    On February 19th, 2008 at 12:57 pm, docflash said:

    Sanity prevails,the USA won that battle.I can hear the raving now.Binny will be kicking a goat in his cave.Any comments Rusty?

  53. #53
    On February 19th, 2008 at 1:03 pm, josetheguerilla said:

    Hey, ACLU: Crawl back in your holes (or caves). Ha ha ha!!!!!!

  54. #54
    On February 19th, 2008 at 1:03 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

    docflash,

    ROFL good on. Trolls commenting on a victory. :lol: :roll:

  55. #55
    On February 19th, 2008 at 1:13 pm, Thunder_Run said:

    The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 02/19/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.

  56. #56
    On February 19th, 2008 at 1:17 pm, CharlieT said:

    Imagine what kind of Justice either Billary or Obambi would appoint. The last democrap President appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg . Her record with the ACLU = In 1971, she was instrumental in launching the Women’s Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, and served as the ACLU’s General Counsel from 1973–1980, and on the National Board of Directors from 1974–1980.

    Think we need more ACLU types on the Supreme Court? Then don’t vote Republican.

  57. #57
    On February 19th, 2008 at 1:36 pm, right_on said:

    “The president is bound by the laws that Congress enacts. He may disagree with those laws, but he may not disobey them,” Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, said in the appeal.

    Man, this is rich coming from a true adherant to Sharia Law ACLU Islamist attorney! What was it the Islamic Brotherhood proposed…use our laws to bring about the distruction of our western culture/ way of life?

    If anyone doubted that, well…they’re here!

  58. #58
    On February 19th, 2008 at 1:39 pm, JohnW said:

    Thanks, Marshall Russ. Sometimes I’m not sure if I missed something in the news, or if these folks just live in a different universe than me!

  59. #59
    On February 19th, 2008 at 1:56 pm, Marshall Russ said:

    Oh, they live in a different universe alright JohnW. One where there are no standards or absolutes.

  60. #60
    On February 19th, 2008 at 2:12 pm, tony the tiger said:

    #30 John Ansell said:
    Hey Pelosi, how was the wedding? Now get back to town and renew our program for our safety.

    ‘zactly!
    Why did Congress recess KNOWING FISA was about to expire? …and what’re we to do about it now?John Boehner - Republican Minority Leader for the House of Representatives.

  61. #61
    On February 19th, 2008 at 2:25 pm, uhangtight said:

    all you claiming that Johnny boy will pick justices that will directly thwart his past work in the senate are fooling yourseslves. he won’t. he says what he wants to get elected. and, i ain’t buyin’ the chatter. let me see who he picks as his running mate that will tell me everything i want to know.

    take that ACLU, an organization that has been defying the rights of the individual and attempting to create the US of Communism to take the place of the United States of America.

  62. #62
    On February 19th, 2008 at 2:51 pm, Marshall Russ said:

    On February 19th, 2008 at 2:25 pm, uhangtight said:

    all you claiming that Johnny boy will pick justices that will directly thwart his past work in the senate are fooling yourseslves. he won’t. he says what he wants to get elected. and, i ain’t buyin’ the chatter. let me see who he picks as his running mate that will tell me everything i want to know.

    I am also waiting to see who he picks for VP. I also want to hear that all these Republican bigwigs that say we should get behind him are telling him he needs to come to us and give us assurances. No President wants to be a one term President. If he were to anger the base like he has recently, as the President, conservatives would desert him forever.

  63. #63
    On February 19th, 2008 at 2:57 pm, ammo john said:

    If the MSM was right-leaning, it’d be on the news for a week. This is a good win for America.

    Anti
    Christian
    Lawyers
    Union

    Arab
    Criminal
    Liberties
    Union

  64. #64
    On February 19th, 2008 at 3:10 pm, foxforce91 said:

    On February 19th, 2008 at 12:47 pm, NBF said:
    McGangof14 will have no interest in appointing conservative judges.

    I agree 100%

  65. #65
    On February 19th, 2008 at 3:19 pm, KaosKlerik said:

    On February 19th, 2008 at 11:13 am, hatelibs said:
    With Obama or Clinton there is NO chance! We get more Ruth Ginsbergs (a total linatic)

    I heard she ordered the flogging of the maid when her hotel bed was made with a flannel sheet. :)

  66. #66
    On February 19th, 2008 at 3:24 pm, in_awe said:

    Are there any attorneys out there that are fed up enough with the ACLU that they’ll create a “National Civil Liberties Union” group that will stand up for the rest of us? File amicus briefs whenever the ACLU gets its panyties in a twist and provide the court with a conservative, constructionist perspective on things?

    While not everything the ACLU does is reprehensible, 99% of it is.

  67. #67
    On February 19th, 2008 at 3:28 pm, cpodug said:

    in_awe said:

    In other words, 99% of the ACLU is what gives the rest a bad name?

  68. #68
    On February 19th, 2008 at 3:32 pm, Milwaukee Mike said:

    The justices’ decision Tuesday includes no comment explaining why they turned down the appeal from the American Civil Liberties Union.

    =STFU ACLU

  69. #69
    On February 19th, 2008 at 3:38 pm, bpm said:

    Its funny the number of cheerleaders that warrantless wiretaps have. What was stopping them from getting warrants from the FISA Court? To much paperwork? To large a dragnet (everyone?)? I think some of the folks on here could stand to read some of the gov’t filings in Hepting vs. AT&T. Esp. when the DoJ lawyers suggest that the executive branch is above the law.

  70. #70
    On February 19th, 2008 at 3:41 pm, KaosKlerik said:

    Well put. As a test of people’s gullibility, an organization (I forget which one) conducted a door-to-door “petition drive” asking people to back a Constitutional amendment repealing the first 10 amendments. “Help us get rid of the crime-coddling ‘Bill of Rights’” was the slogan.

    I got a better one. A petition arguing for the banning of Dihyrogen Monoxide (DHMO).

    It’s a major component of Acid Rain.
    It is used in the distribution of many pesticides. Even after washing produce remains contaminated by this chemical.

    In it’s solid form it can diminish the immune system and is responsible for thousands of deaths each year. Prolonged direct contact usually results in cell death usually leading to amputation.

    In it’s liquid form it causes thousands more death each year, including in the home.

    In it’s gaseous form it can burn skin, cause involuntary body tempeture rise, and prolonged exposure can lead to death.

    He got a bunch of people to sign the petition to ban WATER.

    Solid = Ice
    Liquid = Water
    Gas = Steam

    Don’t believe me?

  71. #71
    On February 19th, 2008 at 4:21 pm, guitarguy said:

    Why do they refer to this as ‘eavesdropping’, or ‘wiretapping’…?
    Think of how many phone calls are taking place at any given moment in this country.
    Then imagine how many people it would take to ‘eavesdrop’ on all of those conversations.
    If the government were truly eavesdropping then it would need a staggering amount of individuals to listen-in and determine if what they were hearing was of any value.
    And while that’s going on, what about all of the calls that aren’t being monitored (for lack of ‘eavesdroppers’)…?
    Are they recorded and monitored later on?
    But wouldn’t that data then be useless??

  72. #72
    On February 19th, 2008 at 4:23 pm, Salt said:

    KaosKlerik said:

    A petition arguing for the banning of Dihyrogen Monoxide (DHMO)…

    Just so long as it isn’t that dreadful Carbon stuff that causes global warming… /sarc

    Maybe we can convince the ACLU to become completely carbon free?

  73. #73
    On February 19th, 2008 at 4:33 pm, TexasTiger said:

    On February 19th, 2008 at 12:06 pm, John Ansell said:

    Hey Pelosi, how was the wedding?

    Hope Code Pink tried to disrupt it. :evil:

  74. #74
    On February 19th, 2008 at 4:35 pm, SHoward said:

    guitarguy nailed it. Theyjust can’t listen to evryone all the time.

    What I have been told is they have computer programs that can pickup on keywords. They then plug in known code words the bad guys use, and the system keys in on the call in question and alerts the operators.

    Point being, as long as you don’t tell anyone your name is Bin Laden, you probably won’t be listened to.

  75. #75
    On February 19th, 2008 at 5:51 pm, Barry F. said:

    Well, chalk one up for national security. ;-)

  76. #76
    On February 19th, 2008 at 9:46 pm, Chief RZ said:

    ACLU: Listen. We are at war. The war clause(s) of the constitution trump Acts or Bills passed by congress but not by 3/4ths of the states. We need more clear thinking Supreme Court Justices and less communists on the court like RBG.

  77. #77
    On February 20th, 2008 at 5:04 am, graysonret said:

    The ACLU, remember, was a close ally of the American Communist Party back in the 20s and 30s. It left the Party in 1940, and, originally, had the right idea of defending the Bill of Rights, but, it was taken over by the Left and has become more radical since then. Unfortunately, that is true for many organizations that started out with a “good idea”, like MADD and Sierra Club. Now it’s full of young lawyers trying to make a name for themselves, as well as being naive and gullible of the radical left. A good idea once, gone bad. I’m glad they lost. I’m glad whenever they lose, usually. :)

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Remember those fiberglass drug subs?

July 18, 2008 02:04 AM by see-dubya

29 Comments | 0 Trackbacks

Run silent, run shallow.

Homeland Security report: African human-smuggling rings could bring terrorists over the border

July 10, 2008 01:00 PM by see-dubya

31 Comments | 3 Trackbacks

PLUS: The new Danish cartoons–French pornography!

DHS researching electric-shock bracelets to subdue airline terrorists (UPDATE: DHS denial)

July 9, 2008 05:53 PM by see-dubya

49 Comments | 6 Trackbacks

Look, I’m fine with just taking my shoes off, okay?

Narcoterrorists. I hate these guys.

July 5, 2008 02:34 PM by see-dubya

24 Comments | 1 Trackback

Precursors to terror. Plus a similar case in Mexico.

Spinning the Bush wiretap ruling

July 3, 2008 01:47 PM by Michelle Malkin

55 Comments | 2 Trackbacks

Secrets and lies.

Bolton drops A-bomb on Bush’s North Korea deal

June 30, 2008 12:10 AM by see-dubya

31 Comments | 6 Trackbacks

“…the ineffable sadness of an American presidency… in total intellectual collapse.”


Categories: Blabbermouths, FISA, Homeland Security


JustOneMinute

» Klein v. Klein

Riehl World View

» Cut Obama Some Slack