Thread: ACLU: Cops = Terrorists

Editorials and Opinions
ACLU: Cops = Terrorists
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 5/27/2008

Law Enforcement: The ACLU says police who enforce immigration law are "terrorizing communities." Seeing cops as terrorists is the tip of the iceberg of the group's radical ideology.

The Cybercast News Service reports that ACLU legislative counsel Joanne Lin, speaking May 19 in Washington, declared that "local law enforcement has been given the green light to engage in racial profiling."

Lin also reportedly added: "Massive immigration sweeps are terrorizing communities across the country, including those who are U.S. citizens, permanent residents and other lawful workers."

Those who thought the 9/11 terrorist attacks would keep the hard-left shy in expressing contempt for the "pigs" are being disappointed.

Slanderously depicting America's brave law enforcement officers as enemies of the community obviously did not end in the '60s with the "Black Panther Coloring Book." Kids needed extra red crayons to make the most of that publication. It featured bloody cartoons of cops being murdered and contended "the only good pig is a dead pig."

At the time, the ACLU was busy making excuses for organizations such as the Black Panthers. "The dominant forces in our community, and especially its elected officials, cannot escape responsibility for harsh events by pointing an accusing finger at the lawless acts of Negroes and their supporters," the ACLU's annual report once declared.

Immigration has long been an issue used by the ACLU to keep the police from doing their job. When President Reagan during his first year in office proposed penalizing employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants, the ACLU called it "an invitation to conduct dragnet searches of places frequented by foreigners or those who look foreign."

Today, the ACLU's Lin says that when local police duly follow the precepts of federal law by acting as immigration agents — even though they're trained and supervised by the immigration division of the Department of Homeland Security — it is "not the appropriate constitutional use of state and local power."

If local policy can't help fight illegal immigration, it's a lost cause. But perhaps that's what the ACLU wants.

When placed beside the organization's original position on immigration, this anti-law enforcement, pro-illegal immigration position raises real questions about what kind of society the ACLU wants America to become.

"Citizenship papers should not be refused to any alien because of the expression of radical views, or activities in the cause of labor," the group declared in its very first annual report (a position it altered when the U.S. government began cracking down on communists).

And as is well-known, ACLU founder Roger Baldwin was more than a little smitten with communism, praising the Russian Revolution as "the greatest and most daring experiment yet undertaken to recreate society in terms of human values" and calling the Soviet Union "a great laboratory of social experimentation of incalculable value to the development of the world."

The ACLU seems to continue to have a fondness for America's enemies to this day, and not only in its federal lawsuits over the past several years seeking to prevent the National Security Agency from monitoring terrorist communications.

Stopping a repeat of 9/11 would be impossible without electronic weapon detectors in airports, for instance. But as Catholic League President William Donohue points out in his definitive history of the ACLU, "The Politics of the American Civil Liberties Union," the group views such devices "not as a minimal intrusion into a person's privacy but as a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure."

Last month, when the Transportation Security Administration began testing new millimeter-wave imaging scanners in airports that can detect concealed non-metal weapons, an ACLU spokesman complained of "the amount of dignity and privacy they require people to give up."

What about giving up their lives in midflight, courtesy of al-Qaida?

The more Americans become aware of the ACLU's crazed agenda, the less they'll be willing to accept its legal victories that bypass the will of the voters, courtesy of sympathetic federal judges.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/edit ... 0505412158

Last month, when the Transportation Security Administration began testing new millimeter-wave imaging scanners in airports that can detect concealed non-metal weapons, an ACLU spokesman complained of "the amount of dignity and privacy they require people to give up."

What about giving up their lives in midflight, courtesy of al-Qaida?

This echoes a point I have made in some other discussions. Which is the lesser evil, anyway? I would rather not get blown out of the sky in a ball of fire!!! And I am the sort of person who frequently gets taken aside for added searching at the airport. It doesn't bother me a bit. I would almost dare to say that I think the Bush administration should crack down much harder than it has. We need some authority. I'm tired of the whining, liberal troublemakers who make all of these objections to our current fight against international terrorism. If they were in control---which could happen this November--they would be so abusive of both liberty and dignity we would be wishing for "the good ol' days."

If you're not mad as hell, you ain't paying attention. The ACLU is one of the most dangerous and subversive organizations in America today.