(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

A society that cannot tolerate differing views — and respect the live-and-let-live principle — will not long be free.

Whatever happened to religious liberty? @Roger_Pilon in @WSJ http://t.co/Hgn2uk6TTq

— Cato Press (@CatoPress) July 15, 2015

Crowd gathers in Iraq to watch ISIS throw gay man from rooftop

Crowd gathers in Iraq to watch ISIS throw gay man from rooftop... http://t.co/QUm0DhqKiH

— DRUDGE REPORT (@DRUDGE_REPORT) June 2, 2015

Where are the freedom-loving Democrats?

◼ Are we moving toward an America in which only one worldview is socially -- and, God forbid, legally -- acceptable? Are the proponents of "tolerance" truly as intolerant and tyrannical as they seem to be? - David Limbaugh/Washington Examiner

It's not just the political and cultural Left's increasingly totalitarian mindset in demanding that only its views be permitted that bothers me; it's that more and more people aligned with the Left politically, i.e., rank-and-file Democrats, are outright supporting this trend or willingly looking the other way.

This is Barack Obama's America. He has established a climate wherein dissent from his and the Left's "values" is reason for ostracism -- and worse....
__________________
◼ Chomsky: Obama ‘Determined To Demolish The Foundations Of Our Civil Liberties’ - Scott Greer/Daily Caller

Progressive hero Noam Chomsky is terrified of the surveillance state that has developed during the tenure of President Barack Obama, calling it a grave threat to our fundamental civil liberties.

In a column published Monday, Chomsky writes that the documents revealed to the public by Edward Snowden show a system that is flagrantly violating the principles of the Constitution....

The scope and depth of the National Security Agency’s surveillance program is what particularly troubles the retired MIT professor and leads him to conclude that our current president is set on undermining the foundations of our society....
__________________
◼ Noam Chomsky: A Surveillance State Beyond Imagination Is Being Created in One of the World's Freest Countries - Alternet

...It is of no slight import that the project is being executed in one of the freest countries in the world, and in radical violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights, which protects citizens from ‘unreasonable searches and seizures,’ and guarantees the privacy of their persons, houses, papers and effects,” Chomsky said.

“Much as government lawyers may try, there is no way to reconcile these principles with the assault on the population revealed in the Snowden documents....

The documents unveil a remarkable project to expose to state scrutiny vital information about every person who falls within the grasp of the colossus — in principle, every person linked to the modern electronic society...

As the colossus fulfills its visions, in principle every keystroke might be sent to President Obama’s huge and expanding databases in Utah....

In other ways too, the constitutional lawyer in the White House seems determined to demolish the foundations of our civil liberties. The principle of the presumption of innocence, which dates back to Magna Carta 800 years ago, has long been dismissed to oblivion....
__________________
Where are the freedom-loving Democrats?

The Founding Fathers Would Have Protected Your Smartphone

◼ Privacy is a core American value. For 235 years, the Fourth Amendment has protected us from unwarranted searches of our personal belongings... - Rand Paul/Politico

All the while, technology has been changing where and how we keep those belongings. On April 29, the Supreme Court held oral arguments in two cases, Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie. At question is whether the police can search the contents of a phone without a warrant during an arrest. At stake is whether technological advancements have rendered one of our most treasured civil liberties obsolete.

Today, many Americans keep their entire lives on their phones: family photos, emails, calendar appointments, Internet searches and even location history. Considered separately, each of these categories can reveal very private information. Taken together, they can present a pretty good picture of who you are, what you do, where you go, what you read and what you write. What protection does the Constitution offer them from suspicionless search by the government?

The Fourth Amendment grants to the people the right to be “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” It did not find its way into the Constitution by accident. It was, rather, a specific response to a principal grievance of colonial Americans under British rule — namely, the use of the “general warrant” whereby the crown gave officials almost unfettered authority to search colonial homes, rifle through papers and scour personal belongings.... more at the link

Of course, same-sex marriage started out as a conservative idea, and lefties resisted. That was back in the day when marriage was patriarchy and oppression.

◼ "Conservative Pundits: Accepting Same-Sex Marriage Is Common Sense." - Althouse

If you don't remember when lefties called it right-wing to support gay marriage and gays in the military, read ◼ "Richard Goldstein’s Heresy Hunt," and article from 2001, referring to a Village Voice writer who despised that notorious right-winger, Andrew Sullivan...

And watch ◼ "The Great Gay Debate" from 2002, with Andrew Sullivan, attacked from the left, at his fiery best. Conservatives missed a great opportunity a decade ago.

REPORT: 'HOMELAND SECURITY' GEARS UP FOR CIVIL UNREST PRIOR TO ELECTION

◼ The Department of Homeland Security has ordered masses of riot gear equipment to prepare for potential significant domestic riots at the Republican National Convention, Democratic National Convention and next year’s presidential inauguration. - RT.com (image source)

The DHS submitted a rushed solicitation to the Federal Business Opportunities site on Wednesday, which is a portal for Federal government procurement requisitions over $25,000. ...As the brief explains, “the objective of this effort is to procure riot gear to prepare for the 2012 Democratic and Republican National Conventions, the 2013 Presidential Inauguration and other future similar activities.”
The total amount ordered is about 150 sets of riot helmets, thigh and groin protectors, hard-shell shin guards and other riot gear.

◼ DRONES TO BE USED FOR 'PUBLIC SAFETY' -DHS Prepares for Civil Unrest as Obama Poised to Destroy 2nd Amendment - Infowars via Drudge

Surveillance drones have a new mission. According to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) they will be used for “public safety”. Janet Napolitano, Secretary of the DHS, told a House Committee meeting on Homeland Security that the more than 30,000 drones that will be deployed into American skies are just arbitrarily watching out for US citizens.

Napolitano stated : “With respect to Science and Technology, that directorate, we do have a funded project, I think it’s in California, looking at drones that could be utilized to give us situational awareness in a large public safety [matter] or disaster, such as a forest fire, and how they could give us better information.”
Secretly, DHS have been taking bid for contractors who can install “aerial remote sensing” which uses light detection and ranging (LIDAR) that would be part of the unmanned drone missions within domestic US territory.

◼ Practice range planned for N Dakota...

Operators of the Predator drones will be aiming lasers at targets on the ground. The lasers are used on the battlefield to designate targets for guided missiles and bombs.

Predators are capable of flying at high altitudes for long periods for surveillance, and they also can be equipped to carry missiles.

"People may hear airplanes flying above, but there will be no lights visible and no explosions," Gibney told the Grand Forks Herald.

Obama: “Indefinite Detention” To Be The Law Of The Land

◼ Yes, you read that right, Obama is going to sign into law INDEFINITE DETENTION for AMERICAN CITIZENS. - No Quarter

◼ Obama to sign indefinite detention bill into law - Salon

The ACLU said last night that the bill contains “harmful provisions that some legislators have said could authorize the U.S. military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians, including American citizens, anywhere in the world” and added: “if President Obama signs this bill, it will damage his legacy.” Human Rights Watch said that Obama’s decision “does enormous damage to the rule of law both in the US and abroad” and that “President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law.”

◼ Military given go-ahead to detain US terrorist suspects without trial - Civil rights groups dismayed as Barack Obama abandons commitment to veto new security law contained in defense bill - Guardian.uk

Barack Obama has abandoned a commitment to veto a new security law that allows the military to indefinitely detain without trial American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be shipped to Guantánamo Bay.

Human rights groups accused the president of deserting his principles and disregarding the long-established principle that the military is not used in domestic policing. The legislation has also been strongly criticised by libertarians on the right angered at the stripping of individual rights for the duration of "a war that appears to have no end"....

The legislation's supporters in Congress say it simply codifies existing practice, such as the indefinite detention of alleged terrorists at Guantánamo Bay. But the law's critics describe it as a draconian piece of legislation that extends the reach of detention without trial to include US citizens arrested in their own country.

"It's something so radical that it would have been considered crazy had it been pushed by the Bush administration," said Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch. "It establishes precisely the kind of system that the United States has consistently urged other countries not to adopt. At a time when the United States is urging Egypt, for example, to scrap its emergency law and military courts, this is not consistent."

A better approach for Gingrich and Romney would have been to say that while it is good that al-Awlaki is dead, the Obama Administration’s role in the killing should be explained fully by the administration itself and examined by Congress.

◼ CBS Tricks Newt, Mitt into Defending Obama - Trevor Loudon

(T)he fact is that Gingrich offered more of a rationale for killing the terror leader than anything the President has said publicly. Gingrich and Romney provided a defense of Obama that even Obama refuses to offer....

It is mind-boggling that any Republican, or Democrat, would go to the defense of the Obama Administration under such circumstances, when even Obama is afraid to take public credit for the operation. Why don’t the Republicans insist on full disclosure in regard to the process that resulted in al-Awlaki’s death? Is this the kind of power that should be put into the hands of President Obama and not seriously questioned by the opposition party?...

Obama: A disaster for civil liberties

◼ He may prove the most disastrous president in our history in terms of civil liberties. - Jonathan Turley/LA Times

Ironically, had Obama been defeated in 2008, it is likely that an alliance for civil liberties might have coalesced and effectively fought the government's burgeoning police powers. A Gallup poll released this week shows 49% of Americans, a record since the poll began asking this question in 2003, believe that "the federal government poses an immediate threat to individuals' rights and freedoms."

...In time, the election of Barack Obama may stand as one of the single most devastating events in our history for civil liberties. Now the president has begun campaigning for a second term. He will again be selling himself more than his policies, but he is likely to find many civil libertarians who simply are not buying.