Jeffrey Collins noticed my recent post on the ACLU. I agree with him actually (in fact, I say in my post that my "gun-control-filter" is not an infallible test, and I didn't intend it to be a hard and fast rule). Jeffrey says "every dog has its day", and I say "a stopped clock is right twice a day", because I think the ACLU used to be a pretty strong advocate for rights, and then sometime since 1973 started claiming that abortion is one of those rights, and that just isn't so, as it is inconsistent with the first right, life. I disagree with them on their interpretation of the First Amendment as it applies to religious freedom as well. I don't believe it says people are entitled to protection from exposure to religion. As long as they keep spouting that nonsense, I can't help but think of them as a mirror site for People for the American Way.
Now, as far as the Patriot Act goes, which was also mentioned in my post: I think there are good conservative grounds for criticizing the Patriot Act. For instance, the thing about libraries (though the access to library records is limited, the g-men must get a warrant first, it's not as bad as many make it out to be). The argument that it has never been used, therefore its ok, is really weak - it fails to address how a future administration will use the power. After considering all the criticism however, I pretty much agree with Rod Dreher's and Jonah Goldberg's opinion - that the Patriot Act mainly takes existing police powers and applies them consistently to the Homeland Security department. Now my concern is how much of the government is lumped up in that thing; yes, there is cause for concern here. A little test: for those who think it's a great thing; would you think it's a great thing if the opposite party (the one with FBI records in the White House) were in power?