Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Dr. Strangecorp or: How the ACLU Learned to Stop Worrying and Enable the US Chamber of China

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 05:15 PM
Original message
Dr. Strangecorp or: How the ACLU Learned to Stop Worrying and Enable the US Chamber of China
Dr. Strangecorp or: How the ACLU Learned to Stop Worrying and Enable the US Chamber of China

What I wrote in my last blog entry about a "sham election" wasn't an attempt at prophecy. It's just that the writing on the wall was very clear to me in the weeks leading up to the House takeover by the GOP on November 2. That writing on the wall came courtesy of in a number of articles they published on a number of meetings and financial dealings between various dark actors that borders on, dare I say, a Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. Much thanks to Octafish and kpete at for bringing these stories to my attention:

What Role Have Scalia And Thomas Played In The Koch Money Machine?

Earlier today, ThinkProgress Lee Fang revealed several documents outlining the details of one of right-wing billionaire Charles Kochs secret convenings of corporate political donors. As Koch revealed to the Wall Street Journal in 2006, the purpose of these meetings is to recruit captains of industry to fund the conservative infrastructure of front groups, political campaigns, think tanks and media outlets. Buried in this document, however, is a surprising revelation about the role two supposedly impartial jurists have played in these extended fundraising solicitations: Past meetings have featured such notable leaders as Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

A Supreme Court justice lending a hand to a political fundraising event would be a clear violation of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, if it wasnt for the fact that the nine justices have exempted themselves from much of the ethical rules governing all other federal judges. Nevertheless, a spokesperson for the Supreme Court tells ThinkProgress that he Justices look to the Code of Conduct for guidance in determining when they may participate in fundraising activities. Under that Code:

Fund Raising. A judge may assist nonprofit law-related, civic, charitable, educational, religious, or social organizations in planning fund-raising activities and may be listed as an officer, director, or trustee. A judge may solicit funds for such an organization from judges over whom the judge does not exercise supervisory or appellate authority and from members of the judges family. Otherwise, a judge should not personally participate in fund-raising activities, solicit funds for any organization, or use or permit the use of the prestige of judicial office for that purpose. A judge should not personally participate in membership solicitation if the solicitation might reasonably be perceived as coercive or is essentially a fund-raising mechanism.

The article referred to in the first paragraph by Lee Fang is very important. Before I go into those details however, I'd like to point out that Scalia and Thomas are not the only current Supreme Court Justices heavily involved in right-wing fundraising. Lee Fang has a new article out today on another Justice on who the concept of impartiality is completely lost:

Exclusive: Supreme Court Justice Sam Alito Dismisses His Profligate Right-Wing Fundraising As Not Important

Last night, the American Spectator a right-wing magazine known for its role in the Arkansas Project, a well-funded effort to invent stories with the goal of eventually impeaching President Clinton held its annual gala fundraising event. The Spectator is more than merely an ideological outlet. Spectator publisher Al Regnery helps lead a secretive group of conservatives called the Conservative Action Project, formed after President Obamas election, to help lobby for conservative legislative priorities, elect Republicans (the Conservative Action Project helped campaign against Democrat Bill Owens in NY-23), and block President Obamas judicial appointments. The Spectators gala last night, with ticket prices/sponsorship levels ranging from $250 to $25,000, featured prominent Republicans like RNC chairman Michael Steele, hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer (a major donor to Republican campaign committees and attack ad groups), and U.S. Chamber of Commerce board member and former Allied Capital CEO William Walton. Among the attendees toasting Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), the keynote speaker for the event, was Supreme Court Justice Sam Alito.

Its not the first time Alito has attended the Spectator dinner. In 2008, Alito headlined the Spectators annual gala, helping to raise tens of thousands of dollars for the political magazine. According to Jay Homnick, a conservative who attended the 2008 Spectator gala, Alito spent much of his speech ripping then Vice President-elect Joe Biden as a serial plagiarizer.

As Alito entered the event last night, I approached the Justice and asked him why he thought it appropriate to attend a highly political fundraiser with the chairman of the Republican Party, given Alitos position on the court. Alito appeared baffled, and replied, its not important that Im here. But, I said, you also helped headline this same event two years ago, obviously helping to raise political money as the keynote. Alito replied curtly, its not important, before walking away from me. /

But the shady fundraising from Koch-aligned groups goes beyond these activist judges. Back to the Lee Fang article from October 20:

MEMO: Health Insurance, Banking, Oil Industries Met With Koch, Chamber, Glenn Beck To Plot 2010 Election

In 2006, Koch Industries owner Charles Koch revealed to the Wall Street Journals Stephen Moore that he coordinates the funding of the conservative infrastructure of front groups, political campaigns, think tanks, media outlets and other anti-government efforts through a twice annual meeting of wealthy right-wing donors. He also confided to Moore, who is funded through several of Kochs ventures, that his true goal is to strengthen the culture of prosperity by eliminating 90% of all laws and government regulations. Although it is difficult to quantify the exact amount Koch alone has funneled to right-wing fronts, some studies have pointed toward $50 million he has given alone to anti-environmental groups. Recently, fronts funded by Charles and his brother David have received scrutiny because they have played a pivotal role in the organizing of the anti-Obama Tea Parties and the promotion of virulent far right lawmakers like Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC). (David Koch praised DeMint and gave him a Washington Award shortly after the senator promised to break Obama by making health reform his Waterloo.)

While the Koch brothers each worth over $21.5 billion have certainly underwritten much of the right, their hidden coordination with other big business money has gone largely unnoticed. ThinkProgress has obtained a memo outlining the details of the last Koch gathering held in June of this year. The memo, along with an attendee list of about 210 people, shows the titans of industry from health insurance companies, oil executives, Wall Street investors, and real estate tycoons working together with conservative journalists and Republican operatives to plan the 2010 election, as well as ongoing conservative efforts through 2012. According to the memo, David Chavern, the number two at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Fox News hate-talker Glenn Beck also met with these representatives of the corporate elite. In an election season with the most undisclosed secret corporate giving since the Watergate-era, the memo sheds light on the symbiotic relationship between extremely profitable, multi-billion dollar corporations and much of the conservative infrastructure. The memo describes the prospective corporate donors as investors, and it makes clear that many of the Republican operatives managing shadowy, undisclosed fronts running attack ads against Democrats were involved in the Kochs election-planning event:


Participants collaborated with infamous consultants who specialize in generating fake grassroots movements, as well as experts on how corporations should take advantage of Citizens United. One session, about how to mobilize citizens for November, involved a discussion with Republican strategists Tim Phillips and Sean Noble, anti-union leader Mark Mix, and longtime Koch operative Karl Crow. Phillips a veteran astroturf lobbyist who previously managed a deceptive grassroots lobbying campaign to help the Hong Kong-based Tan family maintain their forced abortion sweatshops in the Mariana Islands now leads the day-to-day operations of Americans for Prosperity, the group ThinkProgress first reported to have helped organize many of the initial Tea Party rallies against Obama. Americans for Prosperity, founded and financed by David Koch, has a field team of over 80 campaign staffers spread out around the country, and additionally plans to spend $45 million dollars worth of attack ads against Democrats. Shortly before the planning meeting, Crow authored a campaign finance memo explaining that because of the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling, he advised specifically that the U.S. Chamber of Commerces 501(c)(6) and Americans for Prosperitys 501(c)(4) can now use general treasury funds to produce communications materials opposing or supporting specific candidates and corporations can aggressively pressure their employees to vote a certain way.


After ThinkProgess published its exclusive investigation of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce revealing that the Chamber has been actively fundraising from foreign corporations for its 501(c)(6) account used to run a $75 million attack ad campaign, Chamber lobbyists found common cause with Beck and many of the conservative talking heads. Shortly after our investigation, Beck hosted an on-air fundraiser, asking his audience to give to the Chamber. Casual observers might have been surprised by the Chambers swift alliance with Beck (Chamber executives appeared on the Beck radio program and sung Becks praises on the Chamber blog), who has compared Obama to Adolf Hitler and called the President a racist who has a deep-seated hatred for white people. By telling his listeners to give money to the Chamber, Beck, who owns a media company worth more than $32 million dollars and an experimental Mercedes Benz, essentially told his working class viewers to give their wages back to their employers. However, Beck never disclosed his long working history of discussing political strategy with Americas largest corporations. The Koch memo clearly shows that Beck has been collaborating with the Chamber, as well as other titans of industry, for years. In his latest appeal for support to the Chambers foreign-funded trade association, which already counts JP Morgan and ExxonMobil as dues-paying members, Beck yesterday told his audience that the Chamber simply defends the little guy.


I have detailed in many previous blog entries the machinations of the Koch brothers, Glenn Beck, the real "activists" on the Supreme Court and evil corporate powers. But I have yet to document the machinations of the US Chamber of Commerce. Prior to the 2010 election season, I had not even heard of this organization. This fall, they seemed omnipresent in political TV ads castigating Democratic politicians and propagandizing in favor of corporate-friendly state initiatives. Every time their ads came on TV, I kept wondering, "Who are these guys?" Now, thanks to, we know.

Through their investigative reporting, which President Obama cited while campaigning for Democratic Congressional candidates, we know that the US Chamber of Commerce is fueled by foreign oil and is funded by top offshoring companies working to send American jobs overseas. What did the US Chamber of Commerce do with this funding? They spent $75 million in the attack ad campaign we witnessed this fall. But that's not the worst part of the story. The worst part is that the US Chamber of Commerce raises money from foreign-owned businesses for its 501(c)(6) entity, the same account that finances its unprecedented $75 million dollar partisan attack ad campaign. Only $885,000 from 80 foreign companies have been documented in disclosed donations. The US Chamber of Commerce response to this investigation is that "we have a system in place" to prevent foreign funding for the Chamber's "political activities." Unfortunately, most donations are undisclosed, so there is no way to verify this claim. But they did not deny that they rely heavily on fundraising from firms all over the world, including foreign companies controlled by foreign governments, like China.

Think about that. The US Chamber of Commerce is financed by China. It astounds me how so many of these reich-wing, Teahadist-loving corporatists who normally red-bait at the drop of a hat where it concerns President Kenyan Marxist Obama can turn a blind eye to having their favorite candidates and causes funded by Red China. Oh wait, sorry, they have a "system in place" to prevent that. Is that system called Don't Ask Don't Tell? I call bullshit, and unless they can prove otherwise, I'll throw their red-baiting back in their face by referring to them as the US Chamber of China from now on. If they can't walk the walk, they shouldn't talk the talk.

Yeah, that's the ticket. What if name-calling solved all our problems? Unfortunately, the situation is much graver than that. It would be so convenient if I could just slap the label "American Judas" on a person or organization that deserved it and just neatly separate the right from the left. But it's not that simple. If there is a person or organization that has been characterized as or embraced by the left that is complicit in selling this country out, then I have a moral obligation to slap the label "American Judas" on them too. Not because I enjoy name-calling, but because when diagnosing what is ailing this country and why, then I have to name who is responsible for those problems, regardless of ideological preference.

This is where the story of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), who has had the reputation of being a left-wing organization, enabling the US Chamber of China to saturate the media with propaganda that essentially bought the Congressional Class of 2010 comes into play. I've already cited how the US Chamber of China took advantage of the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling when a longtime Koch brothers operative, Karl Crow (What a Dickensian name! Like Karl Rove and Jim Crow had a love child!), advised them they could now use general treasury funds to produce communications materials opposing or supporting specific candidates. Who fought for these corporations so that five Supreme Court justices (including Scalia, Thomas and Alito mentioned above for their heavy involvement in right-wing fundraising) could give them these "rights"? That would be the ACLU. The ACLU filed a brief in the Citizens United case on behalf of the side that ultimately won.

I have searched the internet and have yet to find any apologies, regrets or action to rectify this enabling of corporatism, i.e. fascism, on behalf of the ACLU. The New York Sun reported on January 24 that the ACLU board was debating whether or not to reverse their position and endorse government limits on corporate campaign spending. The Atlantic noted on February 5 that: "In the meantime, however, the ACLU is apparently laying low, keeping its opposition to campaign finance restrictions officially in place, and at the same time, keeping quiet about it". One person who did not lay low was Ira Glasser, retired Executive Director of the ACLU. On The Huffington Post, he defended the ACLU's action as "a huge victory... for freedom of speech and against government censorship. Yes, censorship." There were more examples of condescending sanctimony in his defense of Citizens United and his attack against "liberals", but it basically boiled down to this question that he posed: "Do we want the government--the government??!!-- to be deciding which corporations can speak and which not?"

With that rhetorical question, Glasser revealed the truth about what the ACLU really stands for. They are not left-wing at all. Despite being reviled on the right and embraced by the left for being "liberal", the correct designation would be to say that they are libertarians with a pretense at social consciousness. That pretense is up front and center on most social issues, yet evaporates completely on the most important issue of all: economic justice. Money talks and bullshit walks. And in the case of Citizens United v. FEC, money literally talked and the ACLU walked out on justice. Glasser and everyone at the ACLU who thinks, talks and acts like him, will never get the problem with his question. Otherwise, they might have seen the answer one week earlier on January 27 from Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman at AlterNet:

We respectfully -- but vehemently -- disagree. Simply put: money is not speech, corporations are not people.

Given the immense sums of cash these corporations have to spend, the Citizen's United decision is the equivalent not of guaranteeing individual Nazis the freedom to march, but instead of granting the Party itself the right to drive tanks down the street, guns ablazing.

It's not the same as giving individual Klan members the right to hold a rally, but rather for the organization to do public lynchings as part of a terror campaign aimed at taking tangible power.

Nowhere in the Constitution do the Founders mention the word corporation. There were six of them at the time of ratification, all strictly limited by state charter to where and what kind of business they could do. They bear scant resemblance to the multi-national behemoths we confront today. Those who wrote and ratified the First Amendment would be horrified by their very existence.

That analysis cuts right to the heart of the real problem: until we compel our government to recognize the inherent truth that a corporation is not a person, then the 1st Amendment rights we're supposed to have as individuals will continue to be debased as we descend down the corporatist staircase until those rights are meaningless. Unless we have a Constitutional Amendment to End Corporate Personhood, we will continue to see our elections bought in proxy by the biggest corporations willing to sell us out to whoever will provide them with the quickest path to maximum profits, especially the corporate libertarians that James Howard Kunstler refers to as corn-pone Nazis: the Tea Party. Of course, by the next election cycle, TP may have been replaced by something far more hateful, far more racist and far more violent willing to serve their corporate masters in the name of "freedom". Our struggle to overcome this cannot begin too soon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 05:52 PM
Response to Original message
1. Interesting. 5 for and 2 against.
Thanks for the votes!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 06:07 PM
Response to Original message
2. Do you recognize ACLU's fundamental interest, and further
how it arises in campaign reform legislation?

They hold that restrictions on 'electioneering communications' violates the First Amendment right to freedom from restrictions on speech.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. I believe I addressed how that "fundamental interest" has devolved into cognitive dissonance.
Edited on Mon Nov-15-10 07:25 PM by robertpaulsen
Until the ACLU comes out and clearly distinguishes between individuals and corporations and recognizes that corporations are not people, then they are not serving the interests of the people. If their official stand on this issue continues to be that the rights contained within the First Amendment extend to artificial legal entities, we the people are in serious trouble.

On edit: Am I understanding your question correctly, elleng?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Yes, you are; thanks robertp.
As I see it now, post citizens united, aclu might re-adjust/consider its 'fundamental interest.'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 08:34 PM
Response to Original message
5. What Tea Baggers love about Fred Malek could fill a book.
Mein Kampf.

Mr. Malek counted Jews for the BFEE.

New memos detail Republican Frederic Malek's role in Nixon campaign against Jews

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 3, 2010

Frederic V. Malek, who is among Washington's wealthiest Republican power brokers, is discovering that even a single problematic episode in government service can be hard to shake.

As Malek assumes a widening role in national and Virginia politics, Democrats are calling attention to the recent disclosure of more memos that detail his part in carrying out President Richard M. Nixon's program to enforce ideological and religious purity.

Malek previously has been implicated in Nixon's crusade against Jews, and in 1988, he resigned from the Republican National Committee because of it. He has apologized for his involvement but always has denied playing a central part.

Now, the 22-year-old controversy has resurfaced, with Democratic lawmakers in Virginia complaining about Malek's appointment by Gov. Robert F. McDonnell (R) as chairman of a panel studying the state budget deficit. McDonnell said he was unaware of Malek's role in the controversy.

Democrats say that documents recently posted on the National Archives Web site "raise new questions about Mr. Malek's involvement in targeting and removing Jews from their jobs," said Jon Vogel, executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "As the chairman of the American Action Network, which has pledged to spend $25 million this year targeting Democratic members of Congress, Mr. Malek needs to answer the disturbing questions about his role and why these documents contradict his previous accounts." The American Action Network describes itself as a nonprofit group that promotes "center-right policies."


Thank you for an outstanding post, robertpaulsen. Thanks also for 'membering me, my Friend.

BTW: Did you read what Michael Hudson wrote? Holy smokes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. You're welcome, Octafish! Thanks for getting me started on this.
And thanks for the Michael Hudson link, I hadn't read that yet. If there is one thing President Obama was always right about, it is that "we are the change that we seek". That is why I've been e-mailing my friends left and right to hold him and Congress' heels to the fire and make them aware we will not accept permanent tax cuts for the wealthy.

I also want to give DU's coti credit for spreading the news about what I think is the best way to do this: separate the middle class tax cuts from the wealthy. Separate the real reps from the corporate sycophants.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
blue neen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 09:06 PM
Response to Original message
6. This is quite an interesting post...definitely worth the read.
I have a bumper sticker on my car: "Corporations Are Not the People"!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. Great bumper sticker!
This needs to be a rallying cry we can all get behind; the way "Bust the Trusts!" was a rallying cry 100 years earlier.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Quantess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 02:02 AM
Response to Original message
7. Nighttime kick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. Thank you.
And I'll give this an afternoon kick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 02:19 AM
Response to Original message
8. Scalia and Thomas directly participated in the stolen election of 2000.
Fuck them and I hope history pisses in their faces.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 08:12 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. Now they raise money for "their side.''
The super rich who benefit from fiscal policy and two disastrous wars for empire.

"Outrageous" isn't the word for it. "Treason" is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. I guess that is why Obama is afraid to prosecute anyone from 43
Edited on Tue Nov-16-10 03:25 PM by Rex
I mean, how do you explain to the country that half the govt is going on trial!? Maybe someday, real people with honest intentions will come along and change the course of history by legally destroying these few powerful men and women from the inside.

Treason doesn't quite fit either, it is to gentle a word to describe these war mongering prostitutes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 03:19 PM
Response to Original message
13. Kicked and recommended.
Thanks for the thread, robertpaulsen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Blue_Tires Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 03:59 PM
Response to Original message
15. I read Glasser's defense piece
Holy DAMN, what a convoluted and illogical mess...

Someone needs to ask him what he thought of the Chamber of Commerce's untold billions dumped into certain campaigns and fake grassroots commercials in this month's elections...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Yeah, I was appalled.
Some really poor justifications and false analogies, like comparing the freedom of speech with the freedom to travel. :wtf: Sounded very patronizing at times, like a "Oh you worry-wort liberals, don't you know this is for the good of everyone?" tone. You're right, someone should ask him some hard post-election questions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Blue_Tires Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. That travel analogy almost made my brain stop...
The proper analogy of course goes more like:

200 Americans are aboard a flight about to take off for a 3-month vacation...The pilots are open to passenger suggestions on the destination (this is a one-way flight with only one destination), and are not above letting a little cash influence their decision...

Most passengers make the usual popular suggestions (Las Vegas, Miami, Hawaii, Cancun, Paris, Athens, etc.) but none of them have any more than few hundered dollars apiece to sway the pilots...Now the one billionaire passenger, who is only flying commercially because he can write it off as a business expense, has $5 million to pay the pilots, and wants to go to the South Pole...

"The South Pole??!? WHY?" asked the other 199 en masse.

"Because," the billionaire replied, "I have a 60-acre, luxurious secret underground compound there. Don't worry -- It's warm, stocked with enough food to feed a legion and has every next-generation convenience and recreational amenity you could imagine and more...It's fully staffed, including a stable of sex workers on the off chance I get bored! It will be like I never left home."

"Will we be able to stay with you? You certainly have enough bed space, food and PS3 games."

"No fuckin' way! Naturally I've set aside a couple of rooms for the pilots, since I need them to fly me back in three months...Not my best rooms of course, but they are happy to take whatever I offer. The rest of you are of no use to me and will have to fend for yourselves."

"How are supposed to do that?" the passengers asked. "There are no hotels, restaurants or even people for thousands of miles outside of your compound!"

"You might try camping out in the plane," the billionaire said. "At least you won't be in the cold, and with extreme rationing, most of you should survive three months on pretzels and ginger ale...In the meantime I suggest you use these three vacation months to try making a little more money, lest I change my mind on the last day and pay the pilots to fly us somewhere else rather than home..."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Brilliant! That's more like it!
It hurts to laugh, that is right on the money!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MrsCorleone Donating Member (844 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 06:20 PM
Response to Original message
18. Maybe this explains why Darrell Issa has warmed up to the ACLU. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Jan 22nd 2018, 02:33 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC