ACLU’s slurs and lies target foes of illegal immigration

American Civil Liberties Union uses subpoenas to intimidate foes of illegal aliens

By Tom Fitton
Wednesday, April 9, 2014

The American Civil Liberties Union has a reputation for serving as a "guardian of liberty," protecting our privacy and the First Amendment rights of speech, association and assembly.

Imagine our surprise when a subpoena from the ACLU trampling those rights landed on our doorstep. Imagine our greater surprise when we discovered the subpoena was filled with racial slurs such as "****," "wetback" and "beaner."

Our surprise turned to shock when we learned that we were not the only ones to receive a sweeping command to turn over reams of First Amendment-protected correspondence concerning the passage of SB 1070, Arizona's tough Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act. In 2012, the Supreme Court upheld SB 1070s provision that police can check the immigration status of an individual if there is "reasonable suspicion" that the person is in the country unlawfully.

The ACLU objects to that decision. It is now trying to take another shot at the high court's ruling with a lawsuit claiming that SB 1070 was the product of "racial animus" and "invites racial profiling." So it has embarked on a witch hunt for racial profilers.

The ACLU subpoena demands all correspondence with Arizona state officials related to SB 1070, immigrants and immigration, including emails and computer files. It specifically notes all communications that include words such as "aliens," "illegal aliens," "illegals," "Mexican," "Latino," "invasion," "beaner," "****" and "wetback."

The ACLU knows full well it cannot win in the courts with such tactics, but this is not about winning in the courts. This is about winning a political ground war with ugly and false insinuations of racism.

In a move of breathtaking hypocrisy, the ACLU is seeking to chill the First Amendment speech, association and assembly rights of Americans who played by the rules and worked to support a law they thought was in the best interests of the country.

Think about it: If you were publicly branded a racist on an issue of public debate, might you not next time hesitate to speak out, write your elected representatives or go to a meeting? That's a chilling effect — and undermines the First Amendment.

Vast arrays of individuals and organizations have been subpoenaed by the ACLU. Ordered to produce "all communications" related to immigration and other hot-button topics such as voter IDs for a nine-year period are more than 20 current and former members of the Arizona state Legislature, public-interest groups such as the Center for Immigration Studies, NumbersUSA and the American Legislative Exchange Council, nine police associations, including the Arizona Fraternal Order of Police and the Arizona Highway Patrol Association, political groups such as the Arizona state Republican Party, the Arizona African American Republican Club, the Arizona Republican Assembly, and bizarrely, three senior citizens who seem to have no connection whatsoever to SB 1070.

One of those senior citizens is Laura Leighton, a 67-year-old Tucson resident who has been on disability for many years. On receiving the subpoena, Ms. Leighton wrote to the judge in the case.

She noted she had no involvement with SB 1070. "I have nothing to do with this case," she wrote. "I am not related to this lawsuit in any way and am not even sure what this lawsuit is about." Making her search for years of material on her old computer, she noted "places a tremendous burden on me."

Being associated with racial slurs was the final indignity. "I have never and would not call anyone of any race 'beakers, spics, wetbacks,' etc.," she wrote. She copied the letter to the ACLU's attorney in the case.

Soon, the ACLU's attorney was back with a letter of his own, one that alarmed Ms. Leighton. He would be happy to come to her home "to conduct the search for you," he wrote. Somewhat ominously he added, "I am frequently in Arizona." The notion of an ACLU lawyer's coming to her house to rummage through her computer was the last straw for Ms. Leighton. She hired a lawyer.

Ms. Leighton is not alone. Judicial Watch has learned that there are at least two other women in similar circumstances. Both wish to remain anonymous for obvious reasons, given the ACLU's harassment.

One, a 74-year-old grandmother who recently underwent three cardiac surgeries, also apparently was pressured by the ACLU to allow someone to come to her home to search her computer. She, too, says she had nothing to do with SB 1070.

There is a "crime" here, though, at least in the ACLU's eyes: conservative political activism. The anonymous grandmother was a founder of a small conservative group. Ms. Leighton was prominently involved in a successful effort to convince the Tucson School District to end a racially biased ethnic-studies program.

In 2011, the Arizona superintendent of public instruction found the Raza (Race) Studies Program to be in violation of statutes prohibiting the promotion of ethnic resentment. In public comments during the case, a former member of the Arizona Board of Regents noted that the Race Studies textbooks were "classical showpieces of Marxist-oriented indoctrination. They are about political oppression, incessant deprecation of anything not Chicano — including the U.S. Constitution, capitalism, and anything European." Students were taught that "they are oppressed" and "principally not American."

This gets us to the real motive for the ACLU subpoenas: retaliation and harassment. Ms. Leighton and other subpoena recipients are targets simply because we hold views different from the ACLU and its clients. However, the discovery process in civil litigation does not authorize the ACLU to trample on core First Amendment and privacy rights. Our message to the ACLU: See you in court.

Tom Fitton is president of Judicial Watch, which is representing several individuals and organizations in the ACLU subpoena litigation.

http://oneoldvet.com/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz2yUSwlUJ5

ACLU “Retaliation and Harassment” against Conservatives in Arizona Immigration Battle

APRIL 14, 2014

ACLU “witch hunt” subpoenas target dozens of individuals and organizations, seeking to “chill the First Amendment speech, association, and assembly rights of Americans”


(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it is preparing a strong defense against a sweeping subpoena “witch hunt” filed by the American Civil Liberties Union against dozens of conservative organizations and individuals. The subpoenas were issued in an ACLU challenge immigration enforcement law SB 1070, Arizona’s “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act.” Terming the ACLU attacks “a move of breathtaking hypocrisy,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton accused the organization billing itself as the “nation’s guardian of liberty” of “seeking to chill the First Amendment speech, association and assembly rights of Americans.”

Among those targeted by the ACLU, along with Judicial Watch, are more than twenty current and former members of the Arizona State Legislature, public interest groups such as the Center for Immigration Studies, NumbersUSA, and the American Legislative Exchange Council, nine police associations, including the Arizona Fraternal Order of Police and the Arizona Highway Patrol Association, political groups such as the Arizona State Republican Party, the Arizona African American Republican Club, the Arizona Republican Assembly, and three Arizona senior citizens who have no apparent connection to SB 1070.

The subpoenas are part of litigation brought by the ACLU, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and other leftist groups challenging SB1070 in federal court (Valle Del Sol, et al. v. Michael B. Whiting, et al. (No. cv-10-01061)). They demand “all communications” from the targeted organizations and individuals related to SB 1070, immigrants and immigration, including emails and computer files. The ACLU subpoenas specifically note all communications that include words such as “aliens,” “illegal aliens,” “illegals,” “Mexican,” “Latino,” “invasion,” “beaner,” “****” and “wetback.”

In an op-ed appearing in the Wednesday, April 9, 2014, Washington Times, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said the subpoenas, “filled with racial slurs,” are parts of a politically motivated “ground war” against conservatives. Fitton wrote:
The ACLU knows full well it cannot win in the courts with such tactics. But this is not about winning in the courts. This is about winning a political ground war with ugly and false insinuations of racism. In a move of breathtaking hypocrisy, the ACLU is seeking to chill the First Amendment speech, association and assembly rights of Americans who played by the rules and worked to support a law they believed was in the best interests of the country.

In 2012, the Supreme Court upheld SB 1070’s key provision that police can check the immigration status of an individual if there is “reasonable suspicion” that the person is in the country unlawfully. “The ACLU objects to that decision,” Fitton wrote in the Times op-ed. “It is trying to take another shot at the high court’s ruling with a lawsuit claiming that SB 1070 was the product of ‘racial animus’ and ‘invites racial profiling.’ So it has embarked on a witch hunt for racial profilers.”

One of the senior citizens targeted by the ACLU, Laura Leighton, is a 67-year-old Tucson, Arizona, resident who has been on disability for many years. In a letter to the ACLU, she pleaded, “I am not related to this lawsuit in any way and am not even sure what this lawsuit is about.” Another ACLU target is a 74-year-old grandmother who recently underwent three cardiac surgeries. She, too, says she had nothing to do with SB 1070. In both cases, the ACLU pressured the senior citizens to allow someone to come to their homes and search their computers.

According to Fitton, the real motive for the ACLU subpoenas is “retaliation and harassment.” “Ms. Leighton and other subpoena recipients are targets simply because we hold views different from the ACLU and its clients,” Fitton says. “But the discovery process in civil litigation does not authorize the ACLU to trample on core First Amendment and privacy rights. Our message to the ACLU: see you in court.”

Judicial Watch, which represents many individuals and organizations targeted for harassment by the ACLU, plans to challenge the ACLU subpoenas in federal courts, if necessary.

(Judicial Watch has formerly represented the Arizona State Legislature in legal challenges to the SB 1070. In February 2012, Judicial Watch filed two separateamicus curiae briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of SB 1070, one on behalf of former Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce, author of the law, and a second on behalf of State Legislators for Legal Immigration. The amicus briefs asked the Court to reverse a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling placing key provisions of SB 1070 on hold. In June 2012, the Supreme Court upheld a key provision of the law, allowing police officers to check the immigration status of individuals they arrest or stop for questioning whom they suspect are in the U.S. illegally.)

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-r...ration-battle/
Sign Up for Updates!

Judicial Watch Combats ACLU 'Retaliation and Harassment' of Conservatives over AZ Immigration Law

by Tom Fitton 22 Apr 2014, 1:30 PM PDT
breitbart.com

http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver...on-sign-ap.jpg

Judicial Watch is preparing a strong defense against a sweeping subpoena “witch hunt” filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) against dozens of conservative organizations and individuals.

The subpoenas were issued in an ACLU challenge to immigration enforcement law SB 1070, Arizona’s “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act.” The ACLU attacks are a move of breathtaking hypocrisy. The ACLU is an organization billing itself as the “nation’s guardian of liberty” but is seeking to chill the First Amendment speech, association, and assembly rights of Americans.

Among those targeted by the ACLU along with Judicial Watch are more than twenty current and former members of the Arizona State Legislature; public interest groups such as the Center for Immigration Studies, NumbersUSA, and the American Legislative Exchange Council; nine police associations, including the Arizona Fraternal Order of Police and the Arizona Highway Patrol Association; political groups such as the Arizona State Republican Party, the Arizona African American Republican Club, and the Arizona Republican Assembly; and three Arizona senior citizens who have no apparent connection to SB 1070.

The subpoenas are part of litigation brought by the ACLU, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and other leftist groups challenging SB1070 in federal court (Valle Del Sol, et al. v. Michael B. Whiting, et al. (No. cv-10-01061)). They demand “all communications” from the targeted organizations and individuals related to SB 1070, immigrants, and immigration, including emails and computer files. The ACLU subpoenas specifically note all communications that include words such as “aliens,” “illegal aliens,” “illegals,” “Mexican,” “Latino,” “invasion,” “beaner,” “spic,” and “wetback.”

In an op-ed appearing in the Wednesday, April 9, 2014 Washington Times, we detailed for readers how the subpoenas, “filled with racial slurs,” are parts of a politically motivated “ground war” against conservatives:

The ACLU knows full well it cannot win in the courts with such tactics. But this is not about winning in the courts. This is about winning a political ground war with ugly and false insinuations of racism. In a move of breathtaking hypocrisy, the ACLU is seeking to chill the First Amendment speech, association and assembly rights of Americans who played by the rules and worked to support a law they believed was in the best interests of the country.

In 2012, the Supreme Court upheld SB 1070’s key provision that police can check the immigration status of an individual if there is “reasonable suspicion” that the person is in the country unlawfully. “The ACLU objects to that decision,” we wrote in the Times op-ed. “It is trying to take another shot at the high court’s ruling with a lawsuit claiming that SB 1070 was the product of ‘racial animus’ and ‘invites racial profiling.’ So it has embarked on a witch hunt for racial profilers.”

One of the senior citizens targeted by the ACLU, Laura Leighton, is a 67-year-old Tucson, Arizona, resident who has been on disability for many years. In a letter to the ACLU, she pleaded, “I am not related to this lawsuit in any way and am not even sure what this lawsuit is about.” Another ACLU target is a 74-year-old grandmother who recently underwent three cardiac surgeries. She, too, says she had nothing to do with SB 1070. In both cases, the ACLU pressured the senior citizens to allow someone to come to their homes and search their computers.

The real motive for the ACLU subpoenas is retaliation and harassment. Ms. Leighton and other subpoena recipients are targets simply because we hold views different from the ACLU's and its clients'. However, the discovery process in civil litigation does not authorize the ACLU to trample on core First Amendment and privacy rights. Our message to the ACLU: see you in court.

Judicial Watch, which represents many individuals and organizations targeted for harassment by the ACLU, plans to challenge the ACLU subpoenas in federal courts, if necessary.

Judicial Watch has formerly represented the Arizona State Legislature in legal challenges to the SB 1070. In February 2012, Judicial Watch filed two separate amicus curiae briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of SB 1070, one on behalf of former Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce, author of the law, and a second on behalf of State Legislators for Legal Immigration. The amicus briefs asked the Court to reverse a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling placing key provisions of SB 1070 on hold. In June 2012, the Supreme Court upheld a key provision of the law, allowing police officers to check the immigration status of individuals they arrest or stop for questioning whom they suspect are in the U.S. illegally.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...-Conservatives