Beating Them With Their Own Sickle And Hammer... lire la suite
Not as far as the ACLU, the Indiana Democrats and the Indiana League of Women Voters are concerned. They are all for subverting the democratic process and making voter fraud as easy as buying a pack of Bubblicious. Their case challenging the no-duh Indiana law that requires valid ID in order to vote was heard yesterday at the Supreme Court. "There is nothing more fundamental to our democracy than the right to vote," said Ken Falk, Legal Director of the ACLU of Indiana and lead counsel on the case. "Onerous voter ID laws like Indiana's do not prevent fraud — they create excessive burdens on voting rights without any justification whatsoever. It is our hope that the Supreme Court will reject the deceptive voter fraud myth by strongly reaffirming the right to vote in this country." So high-minded. Uh, yeah. Turns out the ILWV's key client is a poster child for exactly why these laws is needed in EVERY state. So much for your "myth" ACLU. So, the ACLU couldn't find anyone that has supposedly been burdened by the Indiana law. A key player is either a simple ignoramous or a felon gaming the system. (Sorry, I don't buy the "confused old lady" bit — she was only 65 when she seems to have begun this little fraud game, she's not the 93-year-old Fancy Feast-eating shut-in). They argue that this would "harm" a certain portion of the population (Democrat voters is what they really mean) by "forcing them" to get an ID (who doesn't have an ID and if someone doesn't have time to get an ID, how do they find time to register to vote or get to the polls???). Let's get real. This is about one thing and one thing only — helping Democrats get elected (funny that the Left admits that its voters are more likely to commit voter fraud). ACLU -save your floral rhetoric. We know your game.
From the one group of lawyers possibly more dangerous than the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, we get this news!
So, to wrap this up, since I’m supposed to get over to the Under the Radar conference: how could Mike Arrington get me onto his dream team?
I actually watched Bush's speech this morning at the gym on the treadmill. I was glad to see that he was playing hardball with the House on this, and that part of the legislation went to protect third party companies that participate patriotically in protecting America from insane lawsuits. Most of these lawsuits, of course, can be traced back to the ACLU, so it is no surprise that they were quite upset when the Senate passed this legislation. The ACLU go on to give "kudos" to Feingold and Dodd for trying to make the bill more "palatable". Of course the ACLU claim to be upset over "privacy" issues, yet we know their hypocrisy on this issue. No doubt they are more upset by the protection of telecom companies from their million dollar lawsuits. The president stated that terrorists must communicate with each other and exchange information to carry out their plans and argued that enlisting the help of telecommunications companies is crucial in uncovering their activities. Indeed, this has slipped the grasp of the minds at the ACLU. They are suggesting to the House to let the Protect America Act expire. The ACLU exhorts members of the House to let the unconstitutional Protect America Act expire and stand strong on not letting the phone companies off the hook for law breaking. “Our terrorist surveillance laws are critical to keeping our nation safe from attack, and until we modernize them, our intelligence officials will be at a significant disadvantage against the terrorists who threaten our way of life. The Senate-passed bill would modernize these laws in the long-term so intelligence officials - not government lawyers - are entrusted to protect our national security. President Bush has said he will not sign another temporary measure that only kicks the can farther down the road, and I stand behind that decision. It says something about his national security world view, or his callowness, that Mr. Obama would vote to punish private companies that even the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee said had "acted in good faith." Had Senator Obama prevailed, a President Obama might well have been told "no way" when he asked private Americans to help his Administration fight terrorists. Mr. Obama also voted against the overall bill, putting him in MoveOn.org territory. AJ Strata breaks it down, and everything he says of Obama can be applied to the ACLU: This upside down world, where terrorists who make it to our shores are then considered untouchable because of some bizarre fear of a new Nixon abuse of power, is what Obama voted FOR! Obama wants to give terrorists carte blanche freedom to communicate with their agents in the US once they get here. What is so wrong with the current system? Why do NSA leads have to be relegated back to some kind of impure status simply because the NSA detected them and not the FBI (who doesn't listen in on our enemies overseas)? What is wrong with the leads being passed to the FBI to assess, which then takes those which show to be troubling to the FIS Court for full surveillance? This program has stopped attacks and saved lives, and yet “Big Bird” Obama and his Sesame Street view that ‘we can all just hold hands and get along' is opposed to it and wants to expose us to unnecessary risk?
Tags: of-gueal the dream team