Inside the Beltway - Patriots up in arms (ACLU)

Where's the link?

[huac]

"Patriots up in arms...Chaired by former Rep. Bob Barr, Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances, a national network of organizations from across the political spectrum, will begin its educational efforts today in Washington...The group plans to teach Americans about provisions of the Patriot Act that are supposedly out of line with the Constitution and violate Fourth Amendment freedoms, including the right to privacy...Other "patriots" besides the Georgia Republican include Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform; David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union; Laura Murphy, director of the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union; Paul Weyrich, chairman and chief executive officer of the Free Congress Foundation; and John Snyder of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms...Among other things, the group will call on President Bush to reconsider his unqualified endorsement of the Patriot Act, and will seek congressional review of the most intrusive, unchecked provisions of the act."

[huac]

I noticed that this group included a member of the ACLU. I don't have an opinion regarding this group or their cause other than so long as the ACLU is included, they should not be supported. If their cause has merit, they can make it without including the ACLU. This is not simply a knee jerk reaction. The ACLU has done more damage to America, it's culture and social fiber than any other of Her enemies. The Islamofascists cannot defeat us on the field of battle; they will go the way of the Nazis and the USSR. If America falls, it will be from internal corruption, like Rome. The ACLU is instrumental to this decay, whether defending NAMBLA's "1st amendment right" (to plot to rape little boys), "defending" Islamofascists at Gitmo, forcing the judicial system to waste resources in attempting to mete out justice in cases such as Philadelphia cop killer Mumia Jamal or generally attacking police officers to "defend" criminals, the ACLU is a patriotic American's mortal enemy. Conservatives such as Mr. Barr and Mr. Norquist must be encouraged to help isolate and marginalize the ACLU by other conservatives (for that matter, by patriots across the political spectrum). Whatever threat that is potentially posed by the Patriot Act is nowhere near as dangerous to America as the ACLU.

[huac]

http://www.washtimes.com/national/inbeltway.htm

By John McCaslin

March 22, 2005

The Washinbgton Times

Sorry about the incomplete posting

[huac]

Patriots up in arms
Chaired by former Rep. Bob Barr, Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances, a national network of organizations from across the political spectrum, will begin its educational efforts today in Washington.
The group plans to teach Americans about provisions of the Patriot Act that are supposedly out of line with the Constitution and violate Fourth Amendment freedoms, including the right to privacy.
Other "patriots" besides the Georgia Republican include Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform; David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union; Laura Murphy, director of the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union; Paul Weyrich, chairman and chief executive officer of the Free Congress Foundation; and John Snyder of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Among other things, the group will call on President Bush to reconsider his unqualified endorsement of the Patriot Act, and will seek congressional review of the most intrusive, unchecked provisions of the act.

[Sender]

Bob Barr is a good guy, unfortunately he has become associated with the ACLU. I emailed him about it and said 'Bob, what's the deal?'.

[huac]

"Bob Barr is a good guy"

I agree. I loved his going after Clinton. But to then hook up with the ACLU...

[brushcop]

Anyone that hooks up with the ACLU is the enemy.

[huac]

"Anyone that hooks up with the ACLU is the enemy."

That's the sentiment that must be spread thru the conservative community.

[tacticalogic]

On the one hand, I hate the ACLU. On the other hand conservatives are supposed to be objective and you can't do that judging the message by the messenger.

[huac]

"On the other hand conservatives are supposed to be objective and you can't do that judging the message by the messenger."

Sure you can. If someone attaches "Nazi" to their title, I ignore them. One could argure that the Nazi's had one good policy in that they purported to desire a good economy for Germany, but on the whole, they were so foul that nothing they say can be taken seriously or divorced from the knowledge that their goal, ultimately, was evil and wrong. I put the ACLU in the same category. In fact, they are even more pernicious and dangerous. The Nazi's were an open external enemy who, when they threatened us, could be dealt with efficiently and crushed. The ACLU is an internal enemy, a fifth column among us. They fight for NAMBLA and nothing can be done to them.
If the meesenger is a patriotic American, listen to what he says and decide. If the messenger is a Nazi or the ACLU, realize that the message it merely part of a scheme, the end product which happens to be the destruction of America.

[KC_for_Freedom]

If the meesenger is a patriotic American, listen to what he says and decide. If the messenger is a Nazi or the ACLU, realize that the message it merely part of a scheme, the end product which happens to be the destruction of America.

Well said.

[tacticalogic]

If the meesenger is a patriotic American, listen to what he says and decide. If the messenger is a Nazi or the ACLU, realize that the message it merely part of a scheme, the end product which happens to be the destruction of America.

In this case we seem to be getting the same message from both.

[longtermmemmory]

communist founded, ACLU

[Milhous]

Fourth Amendment freedoms, including the right to privacy

IMHO Americans only enjoy a reasonable right to privacy.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[NJ_gent]

"Anyone that hooks up with the ACLU is the enemy."

The American Conservative Union is the enemy? Good to know...

[NJ_gent]

The invasion of privacy is made reasonable by a warrant signed by a judge and supported by the oath or affirmation of another person. If the warrant is, itself, unreasonable, then those involved in its issuance ought be held accountable. That's part of the reason evidence is thrown out of court when no warrant is used or when it's unreasaonable on its face - to ensure that it doesn't happen often.

[AntiBurr]

The location for the classes is proper, but the first ones who need to be taught are the members of the house and senate. Probably the first lesson that most Americans need to learn is that NO individual's rights are listed in the 1st 10 Amendments, but only restrictions on the Federal government.They don't even apply (and according to Hamilton, Madison and Jay were never intended to apply) to State governments.

RE: your tag line: as an observer for about 50 years, I haven't been able to tell the difference. Also, ther never was a HUAC, it was HCUA

[huac]

Also, ther never was a HUAC, it was HCUA

I know. Try to pronounce HCUA. Huac is phonically pleasing, and as your observation points out, people get what it represents. Regarding the tag line, it was based on a statement from Sean Penn's mother, defending Mr. Penn's communist sympathies.

[tahiti]

"The invasion of privacy is made reasonable by a warrant signed by a judge and supported by the oath or affirmation of another person."

Well, said. Unfortunately, too many members of this forum think that Amendment IV allows for a search and seizure without a warrant, as long as it is reasonable.

I say we should amend Amendment IV to state,

BECAUSE the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, THEN, warrants MUST BE issued, but ONLY upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

That small change in wording would take almost all, if I can be sold bold, all of the ambiguity out of Amendment IV's "original meaning."

[NJ_gent]

"That small change in wording would take almost all, if I can be sold bold, all of the ambiguity out of Amendment IV's "original meaning.""

There's nothing ambiguous about it. Police state advocates will push for their agenda regardless of what the law or the Constitution say. If you make the Constitution so specific that they have no wiggle room, then you've lessoned the effectiveness of the Constitution by narrowing its scope, and the police state lovers will simply come back and say that the Constitution is an ancient document that has no relevance.

Certainly, to some, the liberty of citizens has no relevance.

[tahiti]

"If you make the Constitution so specific that they have no wiggle room, then you've lessoned the effectiveness of the Constitution by narrowing its scope,"

But since the Constitution was meant to "limit" GOVERNMENT, not citizens, don't we want it to be specific?

I think that was the idea of the phrase in Amendment I,

"Congress shall make no law..."

in Amemdment IX,

"...shall not...deny or disparage..."

even Amendment XIV

"No State shall make or enforce any law..."

So, that is why I would like to see "sharper" language inserted in Amendment IV.