Attn:Republicans

[h2co-pilot]

I received this in my GOP email today. Just thought I would pass it along for info and/or if you wanted to sign the petition. (hopefully the links will come thru)

Yesterday, a Democrat-appointed judge in Detroit sided with the ACLU and ordered an immediate halt to the terrorist surveillance program. This decision is a reminder of what is at stake in 2006. Will we use every tool in our arsenal to respond to emerging threats, or embrace the Democrat-ACLU position that just made it harder for our intelligence agencies to detect terrorist plots inside the United States?

Watch our new Web video, which exposes the Democrats' weak record on national security.

And if you are outraged by this latest development, will you sign the petition against this decision weakening the tools we need to fight the War on Terror?


Democrats like to talk tough, but when it comes to fighting the War on Terror, the record speaks for itself:

• Republicans passed and have consistently supported the Patriot Act to disrupt terrorist plots. Senate Democrat leader Harry Reid bragged about "killing" the Patriot Act.
• Republicans strengthened and reformed America's intelligence agencies. Democrats want to surrender the tools needed to track and monitor suspected terrorists.
• Republicans have increased homeland security funding by 300% over the Clinton Administration, and increased funding for border control and border security by 66% over the Clinton Administration.
• And finally, Republicans are committed to confirming fair-minded judges who won't re-write the Constitution. Democrat-appointed judges are the driving force behind decisions that would weaken efforts to track down terrorists.

See the record for yourself and take action by signing the petition against this outrageous decision.

[KenP]

The ruling will be over-turned.

Thank gawd for our country.

I'll give up some freedom because I have nothing to hide.

[f5fstop]

Anna Katherine Johnston Diggs Taylor (yes, that is her entire name ), is well noted to be a liberal POS, and I was not surprised at her ruling. I would have been surprised if she had ruled in favor of the wiretaps.

Her ruling is ludicrous and will probably be over ruled by the 6th District.
Her ruling allowing the plaintiffs standing to challenge the warrantless NSA surveillance program, violates the ruling of SCOTUS. The Plaintiffs in the suit held that they had a "well founded belief" that they had been subjected to warrantless surveillance, yet not one of the plaintiffs alleged that they had actually been surveilled under the NSA program.
SCOTUS has ruled in to establish standing, the plaintiffs must allege an injury that is concrete and particularized, not hypothetical and conjectural.

Her statement, "?There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution. So all ?inherent powers? must derive from that Constitution,? is a clear dig (no pun intended) at GW.

With all the publicity lately over throw-away cell phones, how do the Feds get court orders to listen in on someone's phone calls if they have a hundred different phones and numbers to make the calls. So, I see the monitoring of these calls by NSA a necessity in this day-and-age.

RANT OVER....