Thursday, August 04, 2005


The ACLU has decided to sue the NYPD over their policy of Random, Voluntary backpack checking on the subways. Given their love for opposing anything that might keep us safe, all I can say is, what took them so long? This policy was implemented two whole weeks ago. Tsk, tsk... the standards are falling. There's only one thing to do about the laziness of the MTV generation of anti-American Commi-lovers: Blame Bush!

As Gribbit at Stop the ACLU points out, the Constitutional basis for their suite is rather shaky, as the Constitution only prohibits unreasonable searches & seizers. The numerous incidences of Islamic terrorists delivering bombs via backpacks offers a good argument as to the reasonability of the policy.
1. The method of choice of most terrorists is the suicide bomb.
2. There have been 4 successful and 4 unsuccessful attempts on subways and buses within the past 4 weeks.
3. We haven’t had an attack on US soil since 2001.
4. Our mass transit systems are a prime target and wide open to attack.
5. New York has the largest subway system in the world. Attacking it would yield massive numbers of casualties. 6. Bomb delivery seems to utilize backpacks and other carry-on type bags.

7. New York refuses to use racial profiling to conduct the searches. So they are being conducted randomly.

Personally, I find the randomness of the checks themselves insane. But, since it is the fashion, & we take great efforts to never be deemed unfashionable, I guess that's the way to go. Here is a wonderful piece on how "Random Fever" is taking all of New York by storm & revolutionizing the way the city is run.

HAT TIP: Stop The ACLU, Alarming News

NYC has a thing for political correctness. If a black dude has just robbed a store and ran away, they are not really supposed to actually go out and look for a black dude. Thats 'profiling.' If they find out that some arab named Muhummad Muhummad was going to blow up a train, then they randomly search people. They cant look for an arab... thats racism
Thanks for the linky love.
Well that's the ALCU for you. They would rather have bombs going off on the subway, rather than allowing the police to target suspect terrorists.

The ACLU won't let the law of the land get in their way, they get what they want through intimidation. It's a pity they themselves can't be sued.
NYgirl and friends,

You criticized an anonymous writer in a previous post for calling y'all "morons" but then you turn around and call those who disagree with Bush policies "anti-american commie-lovers" whose only reasoning is the embicilic "we hate Bush."

Shipwrecked you're doing almost the same thing by suggesting the ACLU would rather see bombs going off in the subways. No one is in favor of bombs going off and killing innocents, so don't make such highly charged accusations. As you correctly told the anonymous writer, it doesn't do much to further the much-needed dialog in our country.

And it's not just in this particular post, y'all. You're doing it quite often in your posts, either calling names or committing ad hominem attacks (they hate us, they'd rather see humans killed...).

That's my final comment on this topic...probably.
Sorry, imbecilic.
Dan, ever heard of satier, humor?
Satire? Ohhhh, I see. So, when you said:

"They [youth] will serve as a "correction" to the whinny, losers of the hippy generation that squandered their inheritance..." it was witty satire but when anonymous called you morons, it was just name-calling?

Then you don't really think those opposed to Bush are "anti-american commie-haters"? Great! I was afraid I as in your bad graces.

Well, okay. Witty satire is way cool with me. Satirize away!
Dan, I was refering to this post. I am entitled to my opinion as are you as is anonymous. Of course I consider those who post attacks under anonymous to be the worst kind of coward, but I do tolerate them.

I don't know if you noticed, but I did not ban him or you or anyone else who disagrees with me, nor have I eliminated the anonymous comment option.
PS: Dan, if you go to the Stop the ACLU website, they have sources that show that the ACLU is anti-American & pro-Communist. These are statements made by the founder of the ACLU, not by a conservative commentator.
I could be REALLY inflammatory and suggest that the ACLU and its fellow travelers WANT bombs going off on the subways so they can blame Bush for it...

But I won't.

Look, I wouldn't be too keen to have the local constabulary looking in my bags or car. I'm not up to anything, but it's the principle of the thing. BUT, if it means keeping Muhammed the Nut from blowing up a bus or train with me and a few dozen of my fellow Americans on it, then I say "Search away!"

One other note on the ACLU: there's such a thing as giving a little now to avoid giving a lot later. IF (when) there is a successful terror bombing on a New York subway by a Middle Eastern man in his mid- to late-20s, then random searches will be the least of anybody's worries.
From what I understand, the ACLU doesn't like the idea of the cops racially profiling suspects. In other words they should not pick on the people who very possibly are the terrorists. The law suit does not protect users of the subways. It hinders the police in trying to stop terrorist acts. Thus the ACLU, actually helps those who would destroy us. This is a deliberate act.

All users of the subway want the police to be vigilant, that includes Muslims, as the terrorists don't have bombs that select only non-muslims. The only people who could seriously say they do not want searches to be aimed at potential terrorists, are the potential terrorists and their supporters.

Dan, if the police released a description of a wanted person, that looked like you, would you really be offended if the police stop you, and check your identity? Or would you prefer to let the bad guy go free so that your dignity isn't hurt?

Since when did the ACLU really look after the interests of most Americans? The last time I looked at their website it seemed quite the opposite.
Went to Stop the ACLU. Couldn't find any quotes showing the ACLU is anti-american, etc. Little help? And just curious: What does it take in your book to be anti-american? Pro-communism?
Ok, how about the founding of the ACLU in 1920 by self-professed Communists Roger Baldwin and Crystal Eastman. And it goes on from there.

About every 5 weeks or so, we get a moonbat like you trolling either at Stop The ACLU or on one of our members' blogs spewing the same uneducated crap. So then we have to re-run a series of sourced posts just to satisfy one troll.

Well, I'm not into that any more. If you are going to check our our blogs, look into it yourself. Check out our archives. Because all this info has already been covered.

Have you ever heard of google? My blog is listed there. I'm sure you can find one of my old posts. You want proof, search for it. I'm tired of keying in the information for every Bob Backel wanna be.
You went to stoptheaclu and didn't find anything that said the ACLU was pro-terrorist? Or Anti-American? You obviously either looked for a total of 2 seconds, you have trouble reading, or you need glasses.
While I disagree with about everything Dan is saying here I think we need to have more patience with his point of view.

I would like to see conservatives like us try to bring people like Dan to our side: we need to keep building majorities. Perhaps we can get an over 60-vote majority in the Senate some day!!! That would be great, no more Bolton or Bork issues.
Thank you brother Justin for seeking to include me. To Mr. Jay, I looked at the Stop ACLU website for probably 5 minutes. I saw much rhetoric, but not much that suggested to me that they're anti-american. I did not see that the founders were self-professed communists but, okay, I'll take your word for it.

I am not one that is rabidly afraid of the communist concept as many seem to be. I've communist leanings myself. Call me a moonbat if you must (although I'll confess a bit more ignorance on that term). Jesus and the early church held all things in common and, as a Christian, that is my starting point. Have communist countries committed awful acts? Sure. Doesn't mean anyone calling themselves communist is either evil or anti-american.

If you don't want to tell me how they're anti-american, that's fine. Just thought I'd ask and give you an opportunity to make a reasoned answer.


What never ceases to amaze me is Americans who embrace communism. No doubt you've heard Lenin's term, "Useful Idiots" applied to western liberals. There was a reason for this. Liberals were the conduits for communism's attempt to spread into the free world.
Tell me something: Why do you think people in communist countries risk their lives to get out of them and come to countries like the U.S.? Do you think it's because maybe they know something our "intellectually superior" cultural elite-we-know-what's-best-for-everyone-better-than-they-do liberals don't, like maybe knowledge gained by firsthand experience?

Where the ACLU is concerned, their actions speak for themselves. These people are lawyers. You can't get through law school without having something on the ball "upstairs". That means these folks are smart enough to see that their obstructions give an upper hand to those who would murder us.
Yet they continue to obstruct, not only in the name of a political agenda, but also for money. Yeah, the ol' "filthy lucre".
This is their M.O.; they sue NYC, and if they win thanks to a liberal judge or jury, their legal fees, by law, are paid by the City of New York(the taxpayer).
Believe me, al-Qaeda and their friends love the ACLU even more than you do.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?