(T)he ACLU is no longer a neutral defender of everyone's civil liberties; it has morphed into a hyper-partisan, hard-left political advocacy group

The Final Nail in the ACLU's Coffin https://t.co/lILrtiwT1b

— PubliusNV (@PubliusNV) June 14, 2018

The director of the American Civil Liberties Union has now acknowledged what should have been obvious to everybody over the past several years: that the ACLU is no longer a neutral defender of everyone's civil liberties; it has morphed into a hyper-partisan, hard-left political advocacy group. The final nail in its coffin was the announcement that for the first time in its history the ACLU would become involved in partisan electoral politics, supporting candidates, referenda and other agenda-driven political goals.

The headline in the June 8, 2018 edition of The New Yorker tells it all: "The ACLU is getting involved in elections – and reinventing itself for the Trump Era." The article continues:

"In this midterm year, however, as progressive groups have mushroomed and grown more active, and as liberal billionaires such as Howard Schultz and Tom Steyer have begun to imagine themselves as political heroes and eye Presidential runs, the A.C.L.U., itself newly flush, has begun to move in step with the times. For the first time in its history, the A.C.L.U. is taking an active role in elections. The group has plans to spend more than twenty-five million dollars on races and ballot initiatives by Election Day, in November."

Since its establishment nearly 100 years ago, the ACLU has been, in the words of The New Yorker, "Fastidiously nonpartisan, so prudish about any alliance with any political power that its leadership, in the 1980's and 90's, declined even to give awards to likeminded legislators for fear that it might give the wrong impression." ...

For ACLU, getting Trump trumps civil liberties

For ACLU, getting Trump trumps civil liberties https://t.co/d8Z6Lm8UX7 by @Alandersh pic.twitter.com/Iq1olE2R6v

— Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) April 15, 2018

As a civil rights organization, the NRA opposes the "No Fly, No Buy" proposals because they violate not only our Second Amendment rights, but our Fifth Amendment rights as well. An attack on one right is an attack on them all.

Why ACLU and NRA take same side of 'no fly' gun debate https://t.co/rXJMXNNDbd #2A

— NRA (@NRA) June 24, 2016

#Fact: "No Fly, No Buy" may sound like a rational talking point, but it rejects core American values https://t.co/R54LlIflUY #2A

— NRA (@NRA) June 23, 2016

Air Marshals in 2006: Innocent people are being put on government watch lists; "That could have serious impact" https://t.co/iJtrt1wVnt

— NRA (@NRA) June 23, 2016

Key words: "They. Did. Nothing. Wrong." https://t.co/sTnPEv7NW1 #2A pic.twitter.com/aIaFhp5JOf

— NRA (@NRA) June 23, 2016

Doctors are being turned into government agents, where they’re pressured financially to ask questions they consider inappropriate and unnecessary and violate their Hippocratic Oath to keep patients’ records confidential.

◼ OBAMA WANTS YOUR SEXUAL HISTORY - Betsy McCaughey/Human Events

Patients need to defend their own privacy by refusing to answer the intrusive “social history” questions. If you need to confide something to your doctor pertaining to your own treatment, ask your doctor about keeping two sets of books so that your secrets stay in the office. Doctors take the Hippocratic oath seriously and will not be offended.

Are such precautions paranoid? Hardly. We are only beginning to see the data collection ambitions of the executive branch. On Sept. 6, The New York Times reported that Edward Snowden’s revelations show that the National Security Agency has “broadly compromised the guarantees that Internet companies have given consumers to reassure them that their communications, online bank and medical records, would be undecipherable to criminals or governments.”

Be cautious about sharing your medical secrets with Uncle Sam.

NRA Signs On to ACLU Lawsuit, Claims NSA Starting ´National Gun Registry´

◼ The National Rifle Association (NRA) joined the American Civil Liberties Union´s (ACLU) lawsuit against the National Security Agency (NSA) Wednesday, claiming the federal agency´s "database of phone numbers amounts to ´a national gun registry.´" - AWR Hawkins/Breitbart

COP: 'No Expectation Of Privacy'...

◼ Driving somewhere? There's a gov't record of that - AP
◼ Automated law enforcement scanners have records on location, movement -- of every vehicle... AP/FOX
◼ Mass Tracking: Police Documents on License Plate Scanners Reveal Mass Tracking - ACLU

Automatic license plate readers are the most widespread location tracking technology you’ve probably never heard of. Mounted on patrol cars or stationary objects like bridges, they snap photos of every passing car, recording their plate numbers, times, and locations. At first the captured plate data was used just to check against lists of cars law enforcement hoped to locate for various reasons (to act on arrest warrants, find stolen cars, etc.). But increasingly, all of this data is being fed into massive databases that contain the location information of many millions of innocent Americans stretching back for months or even years.

This is what we have found after analyzing more than 26,000 pages of documents from police departments in cities and towns across the country, obtained through freedom of information requests by ACLU affiliates in 38 states and Washington, D.C. As it becomes increasingly clear that ours is an era of mass surveillance facilitated by ever cheaper and more powerful computing technology (think about the NSA's call logging program), it is critical we learn how this technology is being used. License plate readers are just one example of a disturbing phenomenon: the government is increasingly using new technology to collect information about all of us, all the time, and to store it forever – providing a complete record of our lives for it to access at will.

◼ COP: 'No Expectation Of Privacy' - CBS DC

◼ PLUS: From 17,500 feet overhead...today. We are moving towards a even more electronic future where you will be tracked everywhere you go. Spy Drone Can See What You are Wearing From 17,500 Feet

ACLU Files Lawsuit Over NSA Phone Surveillance - MORE

◼ The ACLU has just filed a lawsuit challenging several in the Obama administration over its indiscriminate scooping up of phone records. - Le-gal In-sur-rec-tion

The ACLU has just filed a lawsuit challenging several in the Obama administration over its indiscriminate scooping up of phone records.

◼ In the wake of the past week's revelations about the NSA's unprecedented mass surveillance of phone calls, today the ACLU filed a lawsuit charging that the program violates Americans' constitutional rights of free speech, association, and privacy. - ACLU

This lawsuit comes a day after we submitted a motion to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) seeking the release of secret court opinions on the Patriot Act's Section 215, which has been interpreted to authorize this warrantless and suspicionless collection of phone records.

Last week, The Guardian released an order issued by the FISC that compelled a Verizon subsidiary—Verizon Business Network Services (VBNS)—to hand over, on an "ongoing, daily basis," details for every phone call placed on its network for a prospective three-month period. Collecting those details—"metadata" that reveals who people talk to, for how long, how often, and possibly from where—allows the government to paint an alarmingly detailed picture of Americans' private lives. The FISC order cited Section 215 as its legal basis, yet the breadth of the authority it granted to the government is simply incompatible with the text of the statute.

As an organization that advocates for and litigates to defend the civil liberties of society's most vulnerable, the staff at the ACLU naturally use the phone—a lot—to talk about sensitive and confidential topics with clients, legislators, whistleblowers, and ACLU members. And since the ACLU is a VBNS customer, we were immediately confronted with the harmful impact that such broad surveillance would have on our legal and advocacy work. So we're acting quickly to get into court to challenge the government's abuse of Section 215.

◼ Nine Companies Tied to PRISM, Obama Will Be Smacked With (Another) Class-Action Lawsuit Wednesday - US News & World Report

AOL, Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, PalTalk, Skype, Yahoo! and Youtube will be named in the suit, attorney says

ACLU Opposing Senate Bill, Doesn’t Trust Harry Reid

◼ At first glance this seems utterly ridiculous, but it is shaping up to be true. The American Civil Liberties Union, or ACLU, announced today that the group is opposing the Senate legislation in the bill’s current form. - The Brenner Brief

Although any opposition is welcome, conservatives should not be jumping for joy just yet.

The intention behind the ACLU opposing Senate gun ban legislation has nothing to do with the preservation of the Second Amendment. The ACLU does not oppose universal background checks, or even a ban on the proposed firearms and magazines, but they are against the establishment of a federal government database containing private citizens who own firearms. The pro gun-control mainstream media outlets have portrayed this concern as a conservative case of paranoia, but coincidentally, the ACLU doesn’t trust the government with this information either.

◼ ACLU says Reid’s gun legislation could threaten privacy rights, civil liberties - Vince Coglianese/Daily Caller

The inclusion of universal background checks — the poll-tested lynchpin of most Democratic proposals — “raises two significant concerns,” the ACLU’s Chris Calabrese told TheDC Wednesday.

Calabrese — a privacy lobbyist — was first careful to note that the ACLU doesn’t strictly oppose universal background checks for gun purchases. “If you’re going to require a background check, we think it should be effective,” Calabrese explained.

“However, we also believe those checks have to be conducted in a way that protects privacy and civil liberties. So, in that regard, we think the current legislation, the current proposal on universal background checks raises two significant concerns,” he went on.

“The first is that it treats the records for private purchases very differently than purchases made through licensed sellers. Under existing law, most information regarding an approved purchase is destroyed within 24 hours when a licensed seller does a [National Instant Criminal Background Check System] check now,” Calabrese said, “and almost all of it is destroyed within 90 days.”

Calabrese wouldn’t characterize the current legislation’s record-keeping provision as a “national gun registry” — which the White House has denied pursuing — but he did say that such a registry could be “a second step.”

EXCLUSIVE: ACLU BACKS PAUL'S FILIBUSTER

◼ On Wednesday afternoon, Christopher Anders, Senior Legislative Council at the American Civil Liberties Union in Washington D.C., spoke with Breitbart News exclusively about Senator Rand Paul’s filibuster of the John Brennan nomination to CIA director over the administration’s failures to answer questions about domestic use of drones. - Ben Shapiro/Breitbart

Anders backed Paul to the hilt, and was highly critical of the Obama administration.

“It’s certainly a courageous and historic effort by Senator Rand Paul and his colleagues, who are now increasing in numbers and coming to the fore in support of his filibuster,” said Anders. “The information Senator Paul is looking for goes to the very core of what the US is and who Americans are as a people.” Anders pointed out that the information Paul seeks is easy for the administration to hand over – it “ought to be a no-brainer,” he said. “It ought to be upsetting for everyone, all Americans of both parties, to not be able to get a straight answer to what is a very straightforward question from Senator Paul.”

Court: Obama Can Secretly Assassinate American Citizens Suspected of Terrorism

◼ The ACLU and New York Times are appealing the decision. - The Philly Post

Here are a few things that are public knowledge: President Obama oversees a drone program that targets terrorists with assassination. That he personally signs off on executions. And that American citizens abroad have—on at least one occasion—been targeted for assassination. We know all these things because anonymous administration officials have been telling us the details in newspaper and magazine articles for years. (The president has even made jokes about it in public.) But a federal court on Wednesday ruled that the Obama Administration doesn’t have to provide information showing that the program is actually lawful because … (drum roll) the program is a secret. U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon acknowledged in her ruling that the explanation is a tough one to swallow. “The administration has engaged in public discussion of the legality of targeted killing, even of citizens, but in cryptic and imprecise ways,” she wrote. But in the end, the Obama Administration ““cannot be compelled . . . to explain in detail the reasons why its actions do not violate the constitution and laws of the United States.” We’ll just have to trust him then.

◼ Judge backs Obama administration on secrecy of targeted killings of terrorism suspects - Washington Post

But the judge also described a “veritable Catch-22” of security rules that allow the executive branch to declare legal “actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reasons for their conclusion a secret.”

...The ACLU and the Times both said they plan to appeal. A similar ACLU case covering many of the same issues remains pending in the U.S. District Court in Washington.

President Obama Signs Indefinite Detention Into Law

◼ President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) today, allowing indefinite detention to be codified into law. - ACLU

The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield.

...We are extremely disappointed that President Obama signed this bill even though his administration is already claiming overly-broad detention authority in court. Any hope that the Obama administration would roll back those claims dimmed today. Thankfully we have three branches of government, and the final word on the scope of detention authority belongs to the Supreme Court, which has yet to rule on the scope of detention authority. But Congress and the president also have a role to play in cleaning up the mess they have created because no American citizen or anyone else should live in fear of this or any future president misusing the NDAA’s detention authority.

The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally.