Stop the ACLU Blogburst

Lawyers representing a Massachusetts school district named as a defendant in a parent's civil rights complaint have said teachers at Estabrook Elementary School have a "legitimate state interest" in teaching the homosexual lifestyle, and parents have no input into those decisions.

"of the people, by the people and for the people", taxpayers, aka parents "have no input into those decisions." The "State" no longer serves the people, the people serve the "State".

"A nation, as a society, forms a moral person, and every member of it is personally responsible for his society."
- Thomas Jefferson, Founding Father and third U.S. president (1743-1826), in a letter to George Hammond, 1792

The arguments came in a recent hearing on the district's motion to dismiss the complaint filed by David Parker, a parent whose concern over the school's promotion of the homosexual agenda to grade-schoolers prompted a meeting with school officials, for which they had him arrested for trespassing.

According to a report from the activist group MassResistance.org, those arguments echoed the claims made earlier in the case when a brief in support of the school's position was filed by a collection of homosexual advocacy organizations.

"The state must fight 'discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation' in ways that 'do not perpetuate stereotypes,'" the lawyers for the school district argued. They also explained to the judge that, in their opinion, parents have no right to control what ideas the school presents to elementary schoolchildren, and if parents disagree with that dictate, they can take their children elsewhere.

"Once I have elected to send my child to public school, my fundamental right does not allow me to direct what my child is exposed to in the public school," said the school's lawyer.

Dozens of parents' rights supporters of the Parker family braved freezing temperatures to offer moral support to David Parker in the hearing on his case against school officials in Lexington, Mass.

Parker was represented by lawyers Jeffrey Denner, Robert Sinsheimer and Neil Tassel, who argued before Judge Mark Wolf that what the school calls "diversity training" more accurately would be called "indoctrination," since several viewpoints were absent from the school's presentations, and only the pro-homosexual position was present.

And lawyers said the school "ultimatum" to "remove yourself and go somewhere else" was vulgar.

"American values rely on religion. Religious rights trump the secular. Parents have the right to direct the moral upbringing of their children," said Sinsheimer. "It is the Constitution that protects the minority segment from the majority… The Parkers choose to send their children to the Lexington Public Schools to be part of the fabric of the community."

The elementary curriculum promoting homosexuality, he said, was specifically intended to change a child's outlook of the world to something that his parents didn't teach him.

An ACLU lawyer, however, told the judge that "it is a tremendous bonus" for children to be given information of which their parents wouldn't approve, and that teaching children homosexuality when their parents' Biblical beliefs do not support that has nothing to do with a violation of religious freedom, according to the MassResistance.org reports.

"David Parker's dilemma … threatens the parental rights and religious freedom of every Massachusetts parent, and indirectly every parent in America," said John Haskins of the Parents' Rights Coalition.

"As the Lexington schools themselves are arguing, the state's right to force pro-homosexuality indoctrination on other people's children arises directly from former Gov. Mitt Romney's nakedly false and unconstitutional declaration that homosexual marriage is now legal."

Haskins said when the Massachusetts state Supreme Court demanded homosexual marriages in the state, it didn't have the constitutional or legal authority to order the governor to act or to order the Legislature to make any changes.

Officials said Wolf usually announces a decision within several weeks of a hearing, and that's what is expected in this case. Parker's lawyers are scheduled to supplement their oral arguments with written briefs this week.

The brief filed earlier by the Human Rights Campaign, the ACLU, the Massachusetts Teachers Association, and Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders in support of the school's homosexual promotions said parental rights "have never meant that a parent can demand prior notice and the right to opt a child out of mere exposure to ideas in the public schools that a parent disapproves of."

Brian Camenker, a spokesman for MassResistance.org, said the high-profile groups must see Parker's claims "as quite a threat to their ability to push their message on children."

He said his organization, a "pro-family action center for Massachusetts" which equips citizens to fight attacks on freedoms, constitutional government, children and parental rights, can see the "true agenda" of the homosexual organizations in their demands.

Parker was arrested and jailed in Lexington in April 2005 over his request – and the school's refusal – to notify him when adults discuss homosexuality or transgenderism with his elementary-age son. The school took that position despite a state law requiring such notification.

Then in April 2006 the same school chose to present the same single-perspective information, and again refused to notify Parker, who followed with the federal civil rights lawsuit.

[snip]

The arguments on behalf of homosexuals were remarkably similar to a recent European court's conclusion.

The European Human Rights Court several months ago concluded in a case involving similar objections that parents do not have an "exclusive" right to lead their children's education and any parental "wish" to have their children grow up without adverse influences "could not take priority over compulsory school attendance."

That court said a German family had no right to provide homeschooling for their children. The family had argued the public school endangered their children's religion beliefs and violated the family's Christian faith.

Irrelevant, said the court. "The parents' right to education did not go as far as to deprive their children of that experience," it said.

"The (German) Federal Constitutional Court stressed the general interest of society to avoid the emergence of parallel societies based on separate philosophical convictions and the importance of integrating minorities into society," the European ruling said.

In Germany, the situation has continued to deteriorate for homeschoolers, with one 15-year-old student recently being taken into custody by a SWAT team and ordered by a judge to a psychiatric ward of a hospital because she was being homeschooled. WND's latest update on that situation has confirmed authorities now have removed the teen from the psych ward, and she has been taken to a location that is being withheld from her parents and lawyer.

Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at

Stop The ACLU Blogburst

I just finished reading Indefensible: 10 Ways The ACLU Is Destroying America by Sam Kastensmidt. I highly recommend it for everyone.

The book covers most of our own top ten reasons to stop the ACLU, however much more extensively. It covers everything the ACLU stands for. From the agenda of silencing the churches and abortion to the sexualization of children...the book covers it in excellent detail.

There have been many great books written on the ACLU. Most focus on the social and religious issues that are under attack. Alan Sears' book, ACLU Vs. America, focused on mainly on these issues, however it did touch upon how the ACLU attacks our sovereignty. This book, Indefensible, also focuses on the social issues, but I was happy to see that it devoted an entire chapter on how the ACLU is Impeding America's War On Terror. I'm going to share a few excerpts from sections within that particular chapter.

ACLU Fights Measure To Halt Terrorists' Funding

Only weeks after the tragedy (911), Congress acted to dismantle the financial infrastructure supporting known terrorist organizations. On October 3, 2001, U.S. Rep. Michael Oxley (OH) introduced the "Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001," seeking to freeze all accounts directly linked to the "financing of terrorism."

The need for such legislation was deemed so vital to national security that it passed the U.S. House on a vote of 421-1. Almost the entire Congress recognized that this legislation's passage was imperative. Still, on the day before the vote was scheduled, the ACLU delivered letters of opposition to all members of Congress.

"We urge you to oppose the 'Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001,'" the letter began. Why? One portion of the bill made it a federal crime to conceal large amounts of "illegally obtained" cash (over $10,000) while traveling. In a desperate and shameful attempt to justify its stance, the ACLU played the race card. The letter argued, "This provision may impact, disproportionately, people of color and immigrants....[because] these groups of people often have a more difficult time getting access to sources of credit and bank accounts and so use cash transactions more frequently than others do."

Under the ACLU's reasoning, impoverished people would be discriminated against by this bill. The likelihood of impoverished minorities carrying around more than $10,000 in cash and concealing it was supposedly a grave concern for the ACLU. Thankfully the ACLU's efforts to stop this were unsuccessful.

A little more from the book:

Later in the war, the ACLU actually volunteered its legal services to represent suspected terrorists!

In 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments from several alleged "illegal combatants," including two cases involving U.S. citizens and one case involving 14 foreign "illegal enemy combatants." The ACLU filed amicus briefs on behalf of the suspected terrorists in each case, arguing that ll "enemy combatants" captured during a time of war should have access to American courtrooms-regardless of their citizenship.

The Pentagon contended that "enemy combatants" should face military tribunals-the standard procedure in all previous international wars. U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, whose wife, Barbara Olson, was killed on September 11, when Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, reminded the Supreme Court Justices that the plaintiffs were requesting a "jurisdiction that is not authorized by Congress, does not arise from the Constitution, and has never been exercised by this Court."

Though the U.S. Constitution does not extend rights to non-citizen enemy combatants, judicial restraint did not prevent the moder Court from creating this new right out of thin air.

Thankfully this decision was made moot by the passing of the Military Commission Act. However, the ACLU's war on National Security continues, and giving habeas corpus to non-American citizens is on their New Year Resolution list. It is actually number one on the list, followed by destroying the NSA terrorist surveillance program, and destroying our ability to keep secrets.

Overall the book was well put together and very informative. I highly suggest checking it out.


This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already on-board.

Stop The ACLU Blogburst

Judge Roy Moore makes a New Years Resolution that I'm definitely on board with.

Each year the American Civil Liberties Union and other liberal organizations continue their efforts to destroy traditional values that we once assumed were self-evident and beyond question. And each year we sit quietly by doing nothing to stop their relentless assault on our culture and our religious heritage. As our resolution for the New Year, let us join together to defeat the ACLU's anti-Christian agenda and restore our civil and religious freedom.

Most definitely the ACLU's attack on religious freedom is one of many good reasons we should resolve to join together and fight back. We have a whole list of other good reasons. The damage the ACLU has done to our National Security, the War on Terror, and our National Sovereignty are at the top of my personal list.

There are many reasons to stop the ACLU's agenda, but what people need to know is how. Everyone needs to get involved. There is a lot that can be done.

One thing to do is to get active. Email, write, or call your elected officials and let them know that National Security is of primary concern. This time last year the ACLU were running full page ad propaganda war against the NSA and the Patriot Act. Even though the Democrats made a show of not clapping for the Patriot Act, in the end they lost that battle. They are still beating the dead horse over the NSA program.

Another thing is to elect people who will appoint Constitutionalist judges. We've made progress in this area over the past year. Last year around this time the ACLU announced their official opposition to the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. Many of the ACLU's biggest fans in the Senate fought hard to paint him as a woman hater and bigot, to the point of bringing his wife to tears, but in the end they all lost that battle.

When it comes to religious freedom, the ACLU is America's number one censor. They have compared Christians to terrorists, and even called for jailing people over prayer. The most outrageous thing about this is that when these cases their attorney's fees are paid for by the taxpayer. We have made progress against this in the past year. Currently there is legislation to put a stop to this and we got it passed in the House of Representatives. The bill is still pending before the Senate, and just because we lost the majority is no reason for us to let up.

Support groups that are fighting the ACLU. There are many out there including the Alliance Defense Fund, ACLJ, Liberty Council, and Thomas More Law Center. Join one of them, donate to them, and tell others about them.

Educate the public about the ACLU's agenda. This last one is the New Year's resolution we are making...to continue our fight against the ACLU by educating the public. Join us and over 200 other blogs in helping to expose the ACLU's agenda to the people.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already on-board.

Stop The ACLU Blogburst

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 over-classifying 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:

• 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 suppress 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 evaluating foreign intelligence information. Abolish all covert operations.

Limit the FBI to criminal investigations by eliminating 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 occurrences 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 Pentagon 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 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 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.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already on-board.

Stop The ACLU Blogburst

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU

Via the ACLU we find out the U.S. government is finally being proactive against the ACLU in protecting classified information from being leaked for our enemies to know.

The American Civil Liberties Union today announced that it has asked a federal judge to quash a grand jury subpoena demanding that it turn over to the FBI "any and all copies" of a December 2005 government document in its possession.

The ACLU called the subpoena, served on November 20 by the U.S. Attorney's office in New York, a transparent attempt to intimidate government critics and suppress informed criticism and reporting.

"The government's attempt to suppress information using the grand jury process is truly chilling and is unprecedented in law and in the ACLU's history," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "This subpoena serves no legitimate investigative purpose and tramples on fundamental First Amendment rights. We recognize this maneuver for what it is: a patent attempt to intimidate and impede the work of human rights advocates like the ACLU who seek to expose government wrongdoing."

The three-and-a-half page document, issued in December 2005, is marked "Secret" and apparently is classified. The ACLU received the document, unsolicited, on October 23, 2006.

Apparently a document marked "Secret" is classified? You don't say! Quite a scary thing that such a dangerous organization like the ACLU has its hands on classified information. I think the ACLU has already demonstrated how reckless they can be with secret information. You can bet there would be no regard to National Security.

The ACLU think that exposing government wrongdoing is exposing to the enemy the governments efforts and techniques to secure our nation.

In legal papers, the ACLU said that while release of the document might be "mildly embarrassing" to the government, the ACLU's possession of it is legal and its release could in no way threaten national security. To the contrary, the ACLU said, the designation of the generally unremarkable document as "Secret" "appears to be a striking, yet typical, example of over-classification."

So who elected the ACLU to determine what should or shouldn't be classified? And if the document is so "unremarkable" why are they fighting so hard to keep it? The ACLU then goes on to justify having classified information by stating that some of the biggest news of the past year came from leaks of classified information, like the NSA surveillance program, SWIFT, etc. I think we all remember how the ACLU handled these leaks. When it comes to National Security, the ACLU has created a dangerous reputation. I don't think they should have any say so in what remains classified or not.

Rob at Say Anything sums it up:

So, basically, the ACLU is claiming that the Bush administration is trying to “suppress information” by getting some leaked classified documents back. But isn’t the government supposed to suppress classified information? Isn’t that the reason it is classified in the first place? I mean, if the government isn’t supposed to be suppressing classified information, then why are we classifying it in the first place?

And how does the government requesting leaked classified documents back violate the ACLU’s first amendment rights? Surely the ACLU isn’t suggesting that first amendment rights extend to illegal leaks of private information, otherwise I wouldn’t be able to stop someone who obtained my bank records from somebody at the bank who illegally divulged them from putting my private information on the Internet.

I sometimes wonder if the ACLU even takes its own arguments seriously.

Although the ACLU has been told that it is not a target of the investigation, which I think it should be, it is interesting that the the subpoena refers to the Espionage Act. That is too bad. The FBI have their own concerns over the ACLU. Between the shady business of their funding issues, helping America’s enemies, spying on their own members, and FBI concerns; there are many reasons besides illegally obtaining classified information that the ACLU should be investigated.

I'm just glad to see the government being proactive to prevent classified information from falling into the hands of our enemies. If the ACLU has its way that is where it will end up.