ACLU Against Amnesty…for Americans
…because, we all know they are for amnesty on illegal immigrants, but when it comes to patriotic American companies…well…
The House failed to pass legislation extending the Protect America Act, and they are adjourning which will let the current legislation expire. It isn’t a reason to panic, because they still have a certain amount of time after its expiration before the law goes out of effect, however they have dragged their feet so much it is pathetic. The “do nothing” Congress suits this bunch. The Senate was able to come to bi-partisan agreement, but the House remains divided over certain provisions in the law. Namely, protecting American telecom companies from high dollar lawsuits, which non-shockingly the ACLU supports.
“It is heartening that the House is standing up to the bullying from the president. The House is saying it will not give in to the administration’s lies and fear mongering. This administration has abused its power time and time again, and finally the House is standing up and saying no. The House is also sticking with the decision it made back in November not to give the phone companies and the Internet providers amnesty for illegal actions over the past six years when they provided Americans’ private calls and emails to the government without warrants.
I find it humorous that the ACLU chooses to use the word “amnesty” to describe this. As usual they label things “illegal” based on their own opinions as if they are irrefutable facts, but it’s just interesting that they chose this term in their descriptions. Are they trying to reach out by using terms familiar to conservatives? Isn’t it funny that their argument would be completely factual if it were applied to what many liberals wanted for illegal immigrants? Of course, despite the fact that these folks are in fact “illegal”, they won’t call them that. They will happily call a defense program “illegal” without any binding to back it up, however people illegally flooding into our country are “undocumented workers” that somehow have constitutional rights.
Just an interesting tidbit I noticed. It’s all in how you word it.