ACLU and CAIR sway Judge Taylor

Hat tip to Cox and Forkum for the cartoon. You can read their related commentary and links HERE. An excerpt from one of their links, at the WSJ:

As for the First Amendment, Judge Taylor asserts that the plaintiffs--a group that includes the ACLU and assorted academics, lawyers and journalists who believe their conversations may have been tapped but almost surely weren't--had their free-speech rights violated because al Qaeda types are now afraid to speak to them on the phone.

But the wiretapping program is not preventing anyone from speaking on the phone. Quite the opposite--if the terrorists stopped talking on the phone, there would be nothing to wiretap. Perhaps the plaintiffs should have sued the New York Times, as it was that paper's disclosure of the program that created the "chill" on "free speech" that Judge Taylor laments.

(bold emphasis mine) I should think we would WANT al Qaeda types to be afraid to speak on the phone. But if you are a Democrat, I guess not.


Related link:

I have to confess, I am predjudiced against judge Anna Diggs Taylor. I really do have a problem with women who shave off their eyebrows, then paint them on again, but halfway up their forhead instead of where they used to be. This gal looks like she should work in one of those ticket booths of the sleazy porn theaters one sees on Market Street in San Francisco. But no, she's a federal judge. Who appointed her?

If that is too judgemental, then I apologise in advance. ;-)

Picture of the judge is courtesy of Nealz Nuze. Boortz asks some relevent questions, you can read his commentary here:

THE WIRETAP RULING

...Here's something I want you to think about though. Let's consider a scenario. U.S. Intelligence forces are eavesdropping on the cell phone conversations of an Islamic terrorist in Pakistan. It is starting to become clear that this Islamic terrorist is in the final steps of implementing a terror attack on a U.S. target ... let's say a large shopping mall. Our intelligence agents are on pins and needles because it looks like this man is preparing to call the Islamic goons who will carry out the attack and give them the go-ahead. As our intelligence people watch their monitors it suddenly becomes clear that the terrorist is making a phone call to the United States. This could be it! He may be calling his contact to discuss the final details and timing of the attack!

Under Judge Taylor's ruling will our intelligence folks have the authority to listen to the conversation, or will they have to hang up? If they can listen, fine. If they have to get a warrant a few days later from that super-secret court, fine. If they have to hang up .. not fine. ..

Yep... partisian politics (and high eyebrows) aside, that is the crux of it.

UPDATE 8:40am 08-19-06 :
OK, I was joking about her eyebrows, to be fair I've seen worse (they aren't in the middle of her forehead), but I'm still not sure they are in the place where God had originally put them. I suppose they might be. She's also 73 years old, and I think perhaps there are many of her generation that favor high eyebrows. But I still don't understand why some women think it looks more attractive to move them up? At best, it makes them look perpetually suprised. At worst, it looks like a face lift gone wrong.

But on to the real purpose of the update: Yes, she was appointed by Jimmy Carter. No suprise there. It's also worth noting that Dearborn, which is in her district, has the highest concentration of Muslims in the US. The ACLU could have filed this case anywhere, but they chose Detroit. Why?

Publicity. Judge Taylor is a real Bush hater, who asked to judge this case. The 6th Circuit is predominantly conservative, and her decision is likely to be overturned. You can read more about it HERE. They didn't really "sway" judge Taylor; they picked her. I suspect the ACLU and CAIR worked together to orchestrate this as a publicity stunt. They got the headlines they wanted.

Author Tammy Bruce, in her latest book "The New American Revolution", had a great deal to say about the ACLU and their real agenda, much of it quite shocking. But so as to not just curse the darkness, but to light a candle instead, she is also advocating support for three alternative organizations to the ACLU, that work to help ordinary Americans. Here are the links to their websites:

The Alliance Defense Fund ( www.alliancedefensefund.org )
Founded to respond to the urgent need for the legal defense and advocacy of religious freedom, they now lead in countering the malevolent agenda of the ACLU.

The American Center for Law and Justice ( www.aclj.org )
Specialising in Constitutional law, the ACLJ focuses on national security, protecting America's families, and protecting human life.

The Young America's Foundation www.yaf.org
Described as the Voice of Freedom on Campus, YAF is dedicated to making sure the marketplace of ideas remains so, and is committed to ensuring that increasing numbers of young Americans understand and are inspired by the ideas of individual freedom, a strong national defense, free enterprise, and traditional values. The foundation introduces thousands of American youth to these principles. They accomplish their mission by providing essential conferences, seminars, educational materials, internships, and speakers to young people across the country.

If you visit the websites of these organizations, you will see the many ways that they ARE making a difference, and why they are worth supporting.