According to the Washington Post, US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (aka ICE) has almost tripled the number of deported illegal alien criminals.

Long accused of failing to do enough to deport illegal immigrants convicted of crimes, federal authorities have recently strengthened partnerships with local corrections systems and taken other steps to monitor immigrants facing charges, officials said.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said that in the 12-month period that ended Sept. 30, it placed 164,000 criminals in deportation proceedings, a sharp increase from the 64,000 the agency said it identified and placed in proceedings the year before. The agency estimates that the number will rise to 200,000 this year.

The heightened scrutiny, fueled by post-9/11 national security concerns and the growing debate over illegal immigration, has introduced a major element to the practice of criminal law in the Washington region and other parts of the country with large immigrant populations.

Naturally I would lie to see this expanded even more. First, it only scratches the surface of the illegal immigrant involved in crimes, and doesn’t touch those already incarcerated in the US. Secondly, while focusing on those who commit crimes is the logical starting point - just being here illegally is a crime and should be prosecuted accordingly.

None the less, good progress. Keep up the good work guys.

Also Reporting:
Wake up America

In a fit of good sense, the Democratic lead senate passed (in a 68 to 29 vote) a bill to grant amnesty to companies, like AT&T, who provided wiretapping and other services to the US Government without a warrant. In effect the bill legalizes the wiretapping programs which President Bush has been pushing all along, the same programs that the ACLU has been having a fit over.

From Wired:

The 68 to 29 vote is a major step in radically re-configuring 30 year-old limits on how the nation’s spying services operate inside America’s borders. The vote also deals a severe blow to civil liberties groups that are suing companies such as AT&T and Verizon for turning over millions of American’s phone records to the government, and for helping the government wiretap American’s phone and internet communications without a court order.

The bill, which expires in six years, allows the government to install permanent wiretapping outposts in telephone and internet facilities inside the United States without a warrant. However, if those wiretaps are used to target Americans inside or outside of the country, the government would have to get a court order. However, if the target is a foreigner or a foreign corporation, and they call an American or an American calls them, no warrant is required.

The next step is to reconcile the Senate and House bill - given the differences, that may not be a quick process.

Naturally the ACLU has already posted is condemnation:

The American Civil Liberties Union today slammed the U.S. Senate for not only authorizing the president’s warrantless wiretapping program but for granting immunity to his accomplices, the telecommunications companies.

[…]

“The Senate had multiple opportunities to improve this atrocious bill and failed at every turn,” said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “Several amendments were offered to increase privacy protections, with many of them allowing for warrantless surveillance during emergency situations. It’s stunning that senators wouldn’t put their support behind amendments so fundamentally balanced. Protecting Americans’ communications from pervasive and ill-defined surveillance goes to the very heart of the Fourth Amendment. Unfortunately, the Senate seemed determined to pass the least constitutional FISA bill possible.”

It must be frustrating when the bought politicians don’t stay bought. By my quick math, at least 19 democrats must have voted for this bill. That is even if Lieberman and Sanders (Independents) voted against it.

While domestic spying is something we need to keep a very tight leash on, this bill is good. It requires that the parties being spyed upon, without a warrant, are not US citizens. The ACLU’s belief that American rights extend to non-Americans is ludicrous.

The House version of the bill is much more restrictive, so it remains to see how the two will be reconciled.

Also Reporting:
Stop The ACLU

Rick Perry, the govern of my home state of Texas, released a new book earlier this month entitled “On My Honor: Why the American Values of the Boy Scounts are Worth Fighting For”.

So far this is a pretty good book, and confirms my high opinion of Governor Perry. While he comes down on the wrong side (IMHO) on the “nature vs. nurture” discusion, he certainly pulls no punches in his defence of the Boy Scouts and his attach on the ACLU.

The Statesman.com has published a list of Excerpts from his book. Here are some of my favorite:

“Only they know, but isn’t it odd that the ACLU, which champions First Amendment rights, wants them applied selectively? It seems some of the most intolerant acts occur in the name of tolerance; a paradox that seems to describe much of the ACLU’s political agenda.”

“The ACLU’s focus is almost exclusively on efforts to curb Christianity.”

“The ACLU is nothing if not tenacious in its determination to have atheism (represented by approximately 5 percent of the population) prevail in the public square and to force the Boy Scouts to accept gay activists as scoutmasters and assistant scoutmasters.”

“It’s as if the mere mention of a Creator is too powerful an idea for their own Godless ideology to withstand. Perhaps that’s because there is a grain of truth to the idea that, indeed, all of Creation does speak to the existence of God.”

“The ACLU’s purpose—protecting individual liberties—is a prime example of a virtuous cause becoming subverted by an extreme interpretation.”

I am glad to see that more prominent political people come out strongly against the ACLU. I can think of no more vile, corrupt, and dangerous organization in America, with the possible exception of Planned Parenthood.

Well done Governor Perry.

More than 170,000 of the commonwealth’s citizens had signed petitions in favor of such an amendment appearing on the November 2008 ballot.

On December 13, ADF attorneys filed a federal lawsuit asserting that members of the Massachusetts Legislature had acted illegally by ignoring their constitutional duty to vote on the proposed amendment which defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman.

Last week, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed that failing to vote violated the Legislature’s sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. ADF’s lawsuit filed on behalf of VoteOnMarriage.org asserted a federal due process claim against the Legislature’s refusal to vote on the amendment.

“Because the Legislature has voted, there is now no further need for the federal lawsuit,” said Lavy.

Massachusetts has long been dodging an official vote on Gay Marriage - mostly because votes of that nature tend to pass in favor of traditional marriage. The Massachusetts Legislature has, contrary to the law, pushed off the vote for two long, and a lawsuit was brought against them in the Massachusetts Supreme court. That court has returned its verdict:

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts today ruled that the legislature would be violating the state constitution should it once again refuse to vote on the marriage amendment before its Jan. 2 recess.

“The Massachusetts high court today has affirmed what the Alliance Defense Fund attorneys noted in our Dec. 13 lawsuit: Legislators have a sworn constitutional duty to vote on the marriage amendment,” said Alliance Defense Fund Senior Legal Counsel Brian W. Raum. “Legislators who act illegally must be held accountable. If Massachusetts legislators do not vote, they will be in clear violation of the state and federal Constitutions.”

You can find the complete details of the lawsuit here.

It remains to be seen how the Massachusetts Legislator will react to this case.

Cross Posted from Stop The ACLU: There is no doubt that a certain amount of transparency is essential for a modern democracy to function honestly. However, taken to the extreme, complete transparency would effectively make our National Security impotent and threaten the ability of the democracy to secure its very existence. There is a line that must be carefully walked. We must maintain common sense, especially in times that enemies threaten our very existence. We can not be so transparent that our enemies can see through us, and know our techniques and plans to fight them and protect ourselves against them. We should never cede our security to exist over to a utopian ideological dream of a completely transparent government. It is also important to have government watchdogs keeping an eye on government from abusing and overclassifying information that the public has a right to know. The danger lies in allowing too much liberty, especially to absolutist organizations like the ACLU, in that decision making process.

The Investor’s Business Daily bring up some very good points in reference to the recent backing down of the government in trying to obtain a classified document from the ACLU.

“The government blinked,” gloated ACLU executive director Anthony Romero.

Judge Rakoff is notoriously liberal, having declared the death penalty unconstitutional in 2002 (a ruling quickly overturned), and earlier this year forcing the Pentagon to make public thousands of pages of information on suspected terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay. So it’s understandable for prosecutors to not want to fight an unwinnable battle.

Are we nearing the day, however, when the ACLU has our legal system so wrapped around its finger that government secrets can no longer be kept from terrorists? Consider these points:

[WINDOWS-1252?]
• The ACLU’s Romero called the subpoena battle “a fight not over a document but over the principle that the government cannot and should not be allowed to intimidate and impede the work of human rights advocates like the ACLU who seek to expose government wrongdoing.”

But if leftist activist groups or journalists, rather than the freely-elected U.S. government, decide what is legitimately secret and what is “intimidation,” there’s little that will remain secret.

Indeed, the government did blink. However, they caved in because they had a losing legal argument, not because they have no right to supress secret information from activist groups and the public at large. Before we hand the decision making process of what should or shouldn’t be secret or in the public interest to extreme partisan organizations like the ACLU, we should really take a look at just how reckless they have been with such information in the past. Indeed, if we leave it to groups like the ACLU we might as well write the suicide note of our nation on the back of the Constitution.

There is probably no other issue as fragile to the preservation of our liberties than a careful balance between civil liberties and our national security. To its credit, the ACLU recognizes the danger if the scales are tipped too far to the side of national security, however it doesn’t seem to acknowledge the danger if the scales are reversed. So, let us take a look at some of the extreme examples where the ACLU’s absolutist views actually endanger our national security.

In particular let us look at their attitude towards the intelligence community and secret information in general.

When it comes to drawing the line between classified information and national security the ACLU’s record has never leaned toward the side of caution or national security. They consistently defend leakers as brave “whistleblowers.” Even after the NY Times leaked details about the vital NSA program, the ACLU wanted more to come out in the open. They have even defended leaks on vital programs like SWIFT, in which we track terror finances, where there was absolutely nothing that even suggested government wrongdoing. They have even fought for accused enemy prisoners to be allowed to see classified evidence against them. The fact that our enemies learn and adjust from such traitorous leaks never seems to phase them.

More Points from the Investor’s Business Daily:

The ACLU boasts that its legal efforts have made public “more than 100,000 pages of government documents” regarding the interrogation of suspected terrorists. It has posted many of these documents on its Web site in an effort to shut down the program.

But President Bush’s policy of tough interrogation has secured information that has foiled numerous terrorist plots, saving thousands of lives. They include jetliner hijacking schemes targeting buildings on both the East and West coasts, another targeting Heathrow Airport in London, plus plots to destroy ships in both the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, and Jose Padilla’s plan to blow up high-rise apartment buildings in the U.S.

Intelligence information key to preventing terrorist acts has also come from the president’s other homeland security policies, like the National Security Agency’s wiretapping program. But ACLU lawyers are aggressively trying to shut those efforts down in several jurisdictions.

So, let us take a look at the ACLU’s real attitude towards the intelligence community.

To the ACLU, CIA means “Controlling the Intelligence Agencies.” That’s the title they gave to Policy #117. But even that is an understatement of what this particular policy calls for. “Completely undermining the Intelligence Agencies” would be a more appropriate title. It starts out badly and then gets worse.

“Control of our government’s intelligence agencies demands an end to tolerance of “national security” as grounds for the slightest departure from the constitutional boundaries which limit government conduct in other areas.”

Of course, its been obvious for nearly 70 years that protecting America’s national security is certainly not something the ACLU favors.

Here are some of the specific controls called for in Policy #117:

Limit the CIA, under the new name of the Foreign Intelligence Agency, to collecting and evaluatiing foreign intelligence information. Abolish all covert operations.

Limit the FBI to criminal investigations by elimimnating all COINTEL-PRO-type activity and all foreign and domestic intelligence investigations of groups or individuals unrelated to a specific criminal offense.

Prohibit entirely wiretaps, tapping of telecommunications and burglaries.

Restrict mail openings, mail covers, inspection of bank records, and inspection of telephone records by requiring a warrant issued on probable cause to believe a crime has been committed.

Prohibit all domestic intelligence and political information-gathering. Only investigations of crimes which have been, are being, or are about to be committed may be conducted.Twilight of Liberty

Two former members of the ACLU, Richard and Susan Vigilante, conducted a thorough analysis of the ACLU spelled out by the Union’s Center for National Security Studies.

They wrote:

The ACLU opposes, and has fought in either Congress or the courts, virtually all “covert action,” most “clandestine intelligence” gathering (i.e. spying), and in one case aid to an important U.S. ally with a poor human rights record. The net effect of these efforts has been to hinder U.S. opposition to Communist expansion. The ACLU may, at some point, have undertaken some major initiative that advanced U.S. interests and hindered Communist expansion, but our research never turned one up and no ACLU leader ever mentioned one to us.

In other words, strip the intelligence agencies useless.

One of the most revealing occurances towards the ACLU’s absolutist position on national security and its recent evolution can be seen in the action the board of directors took at its Oct 1989 meeting: It dropped section (a) from its policy, “Wartime Sedition Act.” Before, the ACLU held that it “would not participate (save for fundamental due process violations) in defense of any person believed to be “cooperating” with or acting on behalf of the enemy.” This policy was based on the recognition that “our own military enemies are now using techniques of propaganda which may involve an attempt to prevent the Bill of Rights to serve the enemy rather than the people of the United States.” In making its determination as to whether someone were cooperating with the enemy, “the Union will consider such matters as past activities and associations, sources of financial support, relations with enemy agents, the particular words and conduct involved, and all other relevant factors for informed judgement.”Twilight of Liberty

All of this is now omitted from the Official ACLU policy! This is not the kind of organization one should trust when it comes to secrets that need to be kept from enemy eyes.

The ACLU’s extremist position towards classified information can be seen in the very case they have been citing recently, the Petagon Papers.

The Pentagon Papers case shows how extremist the ACLU can be. In that suit, the Supreme Court ruled against the efforts of the Nixon Administration to suppress documents that were a veritable history of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. The ACLU, which filed an amicus, was happy with the immediate outcome-the newspapers could run copies of the Pentagon Papers-but was less than pleased with the high court’s reasoning. The Union was disturbed that the Supreme Court gave life to the idea that the president and the Congress had a right to restrain the press in bona fide instances of national security. It wanted nothing less than an absolute ban on prior restraint. Alexander Bickel, the brilliant constitutional scholar who argued the case against the government, criticized the unreasonableness of the ACLU stand. He accused the Union of being too ideological, labeling the absolutist position “foolish to the point of being almost unprofessional.” Like most students of the Constitution, Bickel was generally opposed to prior restraint but nonetheless conceded that there may be times when not to invoke prior restraint may be disastrous to the well-being of the republic. This is something the ACLU has not acknowledged and will not acknowledge.

In the recent case where the government folded in their attempt to get ’secret’ documents back from the ACLU their first mistake was in their approach. Their big mistake that they continue to make is in not aggressively investigating, prosecuting, and punishing the traitors that leak and publish the secret matters of national security for all, including our enemies, to know.

As the lawyers at Powerline have pointed out, in the case of the NSA leak, federal law is 18 U.S.C. § 798, a law that precisely prohibits leaks of the type of classified information disclosed in the story. Subsection (a) of the statute provides:

Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified [WINDOWS-1252?]information—
(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such [WINDOWS-1252?]processes—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Powerline further points out that in cases like that of the NSA leak, the Pentagon Paper case the ACLU loves to cite so much, only applies to prior restraint and not to punishment after the crime of publishing has been committed.

Indeed, in their concurring opinions, Justices Douglas and White cited and discussed 18 U.S.C. § 798 as the prototype of a law that could be enforced against a newspaper following publication of information falling within the ambit of the statute. Justice White noted, for example:

The Criminal Code contains numerous provisions potentially relevant to these cases. Section 797 makes it a crime to publish certain photographs or drawings of military installations. Section 798, also in precise language, proscribes knowing and willful publication of any classified information concerning the cryptographic systems or communication intelligence activities of the United States as well as any information obtained from communication intelligence operations. If any of the material here at issue is of this nature, the newspapers are presumably now on full notice of the position of the United States and must face the consequences if they publish. I would have no difficulty in sustaining convictions under these sections on facts that would not justify the intervention of equity and the imposition of a prior restraint.

Make sure to read the entire analysis.

When it comes to national security and classified information the ACLU has a long record of recklessness. When it comes to keeping our government from wrongdoing there are many suggestions that could be pursued to alleviate the problem. Allowing the press and the ACLU unfettered liberty to make the call on what can and can not be classified is a death wish. The government needs to step up and aggressively investigate and prosecute those that act, participate, aid and protect in the unlawful disclosure of our national security secrets.

The Investor’s Business Daily sums it all up well:

The civilized world simply can’t win against the forces of Islamo-fascism if we are deprived of the vital weapon of secrecy. Letting the ACLU force us to operate according to its radical ideology of “open government” would be like telegramming Hitler that we plan to invade Normandy.

In a recent article, Orson Scott card summed up what has been bothering me so much about demonstrations at funerals of fallen service men and women. It is poignant enough to share.

We make many exceptions to the free-speech rule. Weak as they are, we still have libel and slander laws, for instance. More relevant to this case, however, our Supreme Court has upheld an obvious violation of the right to free speech and free public assembly, by allowing laws to remain in effect that ban any kind of demonstration close to an abortion clinic. You can’t even kneel and pray silently on the sidewalk outside the clinic.

If the right to kill your fetus is so sacred that you cannot be allowed to see or hear anyone who would like to discourage you from doing such a thing, regardless of the Constitution, then is it unreasonable to protect the families whose children died in war from having to see or hear demonstrators against the cause for which their children were sacrificed?

The double standard is obvious. The same ACLU which pushed so hard to enforce the limits to our free speech in protesting at abortion clinics is the same ACLU which stood behind the Westboro Hate Cult. I will not even ask how they can justify this disparity, because the can not and will not.

I encourage you to read the entire article, though it is long in typical Card fashion.

Card ends with this point, and I will too.

Whatever we might think about the wisdom of the choices of our political leaders, the soldiers themselves who carry out those choices should be immune to hostility when they return to our shores.

They have earned a safe haven and a quiet resting place here.

Cross Posted from Revealing the ACLU:

What?!?

One week after the American Civil Liberties Union moved to quash an unprecedented government grand jury subpoena demanding “any and all copies” of a previously “secret” memorandum, the government today backed down from the fight, asking a judge to withdraw the subpoena and saying that the document in question has been declassified.

[…]

The document at issue, which the government has now said is declassified as of last Friday, is a December 2005 memorandum, marked “Secret,” with the subject line: “The Permissibility of Photographing Enemy Prisoners of War and Detainees.” The memorandum concludes that the news media and members of the Public Affairs Office are allowed to photograph detainees “so long as the photography is done in such a manner that cannot be interpreted as holding the EPWs and detainees up to public curiosity.” U.S. soldiers, the memorandum says, are prohibited from photographing detainees and EPWs except as part of their official duties.

This is unconscionable! That the ACLU can so fragrantly violate the law, traffic in secret government document, and then force a Grand Jurry to back down is unbelievable! Can any group be so far outside the law that the lawmakers themselves are afraid to take action? More importantly, this document which has now been declassified to avoid a confrontation pertains directly to our efforts in the war on terror. It was clearly marked secret, and the ACLU acted upon the information in that document without regard to the legality of doing so. The ACLUs actions where clearly criminal and, regardless of the current declassified state of the document today, should be prosecuted for their actions.

“This was a legal stand-off with enormous implications for free speech and the public’s right to know, and today the government blinked,” said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. “The Bush Administration’s attempt to suppress information using the grand jury process was truly chilling and is unprecedented in law and in our history as an organization. We could not be more pleased to have turned back the government from its strong-arm tactics, which were clearly aimed at silencing critics – both those from within the government and those outside, such as the ACLU and members of the media.”

Bullshit. The only part of the self righteous, propaganda crap Romero spewed above which holds any resemblance to the truth is the fact that the Government backed down. They blinked. This perceived attack against free speech is not even the workings of a delusional mind, but rather a conscious and intentional effort to mold the minds of the sheeple out there who would believe that ACLU is really interested in the public welfare. The bottom line is that the ACLU has acted illegally, then dodged an Grand Jury by applying pressure at some unknown point.

Perhaps the ACLU is closer to realizing its communist goals that we thought.

This is a sad day for justice and for our liberties. The liberties of the common man, though of us unmarred by extreme lifestyles and perversions, are directly in the sights of the ACLU.

When Mark Twain said “Truth is stranger than fiction” I wonder if he had something like this in mind:

A grandmother found with a trunkful of marijuana was convicted of drug running in what prosecutors said was an attempt to earn cash for a bingo habit.

State troopers found 10 bundles of pot totaling 214 pounds hidden in Leticia Villareal Garcia’s car trunk last year when they stopped her outside Bisbee, in far southeastern Arizona.

Villareal, 61, told jurors before they convicted her Thursday that her only regular income was a $275 monthly welfare check, but she frequently played bingo and occasionally won thousands of dollars.

Prosecutor Doyle Johnstun said the game was Villareal’s undoing.

“People who play bingo almost every night of the week end up losing in the long run,” Johnstun told jurors. “The underlying issue is that she’s got a bingo problem, which explains why an otherwise nice person might get sucked into something like this.”

No comment.

When reading the following release from the Alliance Defence Fund, the old proverb “There is no Honor among Thieves” comes to mind. Apparently Honor, as in honoring a contract, is a wholly religions concept- which both these Atheists and the City of Detroit are woefully lacking.

Alliance Defense Fund attorneys filed a motion Monday in federal court to intervene on behalf of an inner-city Detroit church hung out to dry due to the actions of the American Atheists.

The city had asked the church and other downtown establishments to alter the appearance of their properties to improve the city’s image for the upcoming Super Bowl in exchange for being reimbursed for half the expense. But because the atheist group has now sued the city, the city has been forced to withhold reimbursement from the church, even though the church has already secured a loan for and completed the requested improvements.

What a sad, sad state of affairs. I am more disapointed in Detroit that I am in the Atheists, however. We can expect Atheist to do what they have always complained that we Christions do - push there religious views on others. The city of Detroit however, has no excuse. This is not about establishment, it is about landscaping. The church took specific steps to beautify its exterior as requested by the city, and now the city has been scared into not living up to its end of the deal. The activites of the city of Detroit are deplorable, dishonest, and callous. The Atheists are just being atheists.

In January, St. John’s Episcopal Church entered into a contract with the City of Detroit Development Authority to “enhance the visual appearance of street facing building facades and parking lot edges, prevent blight, attract businesses, and complement infrastructure.” The contract provided that the DDA would reimburse the church for 50 percent of the expenditures–up to $180,000–for the improvements.

After the church borrowed $180,000 to complete the improvements, they submitted the documents required for payment to the DDA, which, under the terms of the contract, was to reimburse the church within 30 days. American Atheists filed a lawsuit against the city, alleging that the city violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution by entering into the contract with the church.

This is the part that I cannot fathom. What dose “enhancing the visual appearance” have to do with the Establishment clause? The City of Detroit is taking steps to beautify its city and nothing more. If my last trip to Detroit is a far reference, the city needs some enhancing of its visual appearance. This is a frivolous lawsuit, and shame on Detroit for not seeing that. Further shame on Detroit for not standing by its commitments. Any fall-out of this lawsuit should for the city alone, and dose not change the city’s contract and commitment to local business.