These are my random musings. Hopefully they will be witty, insightful, and frequently updated.
Undermining American Liberties At Home and Abroad
Published on February 12, 2006 By singrdave In War on Terror
"I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal. --ACLU founder Roger Baldwin
Peggy Lamson, "Roger Baldwin: Founder of the American Civil Liberties Union, A portrait" Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1976, p.192

Now from The American President, the finest two-hour infomercial the ACLU could have ever received...

ANDREW SHEPHERD: For the record, Yes, I am a card-carrying member of the A.C.L.U. But the more important question is why aren't you, Bob? This is an organization whose sole purpose is to defend the Bill of Rights. Why would a senator, his party's most powerful spokesman and a candidate for president, choose to reject upholding the Constitution?

This is the public perception of the American Civil Liberties Union. Hmmm... I see a slight disparity between the leader's own words and the Hollywood version of the ACLU. Let's tally the ACLU's track record in doing just what their founder proposed... how have they risen to James Baldwin's challenge?

The ACLU has sued our government numerous times on behalf of foreign nationals and terrorists while they were being held in prisons on foreign soil.

They have demanded that the government release and make public top secret security information regarding not only the activities of our military, but also that of any intelligence leads in investigating and prosecuting the War on Terror. They have initiated one lawsuit after another against the government to stop the searching of individuals for security purposes in mass transit situations (AKA profiling by race, sex and religion) and to prevent the government from detaining, questioning, or interrogating individuals who have actual ties or contact with established terrorist individuals and organizations.

The ACLU wants to kill the Patriot Act because they see the rights of an individual who may or may not be an American citizen as more important than the safety of the nation at large. They want the borders open because they see that as an infringement of the rights of non-Americans to become Americans however they can manage it. They want to have military and intelligence sources, activities, and planning revealed to the public in the name of "watchdog activism", thus ensuring freedoms of individuals and/or groups are not being compromised. By doing so, they enable those very individuals and/or groups the ability to avoid surveillance and possible capture, thereby making it easier to wreak destruction on American citizens at home and abroad.



The ACLU claims they are for a safe and free America. Yet their actions speak very loudly: they scream the opposite of the motto in the above banner. How free and safe are Americans who live under constant threat of a lawsuit by the ACLU for imagined transgressions by a small group of jaded individuals who think their rights are more important than citizenship in the communities in which they live or the country with which they find so much fault?

William Donohue stated, "In other words, the occasional defense of right-wing extremist opens up the courts, thereby making it easier for the ACLU to defend its ideological kinfolk on the left." --Donohue, Twilight of Liberty, xii.

American freedom is constantly overburdened by the debt incurred by people and organizations defending against lawsuits conceived by the ACLU. These frivolous lawsuits range from giving illegal aliens the same rights and privileges as the people whose land they have illegally entered to ensuring granite from a local quarry isn't used by a church for a place of worship. Can you name me one business, one school district, one community, one county, or one state that hasn't conformed to "politically correct" standards despite public outcry for fear of a lawsuit from the ACLU? For that matter, name a city, large or small, who hasn't conformed to the ACLU mindset by renaming one of their streets after Martin Luther King? How many minority deadbeats are sucking clock, because their bosses are afraid they'll be sued if they fire them, in a lawsuit based on discrimination by the ACLU? How many minorities were hired despite inferior qualifications out of fear of a similar lawsuit?

As Baldwin noted in 1934, "If I aid the reactionaries to get free speech now and then; if I go outside the class struggle to fight against censorship; it is only because those liberties help to create a more hospitable atmosphere for working class liberties."
--Donohue, "Twilight of Liberty", xi, citing Roger Baldwin, "Freedom in the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R." Soviet Russia Today (September 1934): 11.

What freedoms and safeties will we lose should the ACLU accomplish their goals of placing mouth puppets and asshats in the government who don't make a move without ACLU approval first?

Are they the defenders of human liberty? No, the ACLU is pursuing a more insidious agenda?

Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Feb 12, 2006
Indeed they are.  But in a sense, they are pure and honest.  They truly beleive their own rhetoric.  Which makes them that much scarier.  When they cannot tell the difference between propaganda and fact, the cease to be sane, and become delusional.
on Feb 12, 2006
Another Baldwin quote: So long as we have enough people in this country willing to fight for their rights, we'll be called a democracy.

You're forgetting that he was born in another time: 1885 to be exact. If you want to take quotes out of context, here are a few more for you:

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.
Thomas Jefferson

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
Thomas Jefferson

This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religions in it.
John Adams

Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private school, supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and state forever separate.
Ulysses S. Grant
on Feb 12, 2006
If you want to take quotes out of context, here are a few more for you:

I love trolls. They are a great way to keep your mind sharp.

First of all, I think that Baldwin's actions belie his true ideals. Sure, he may have said some slightly patriotic things, but his principles and his heart lay in the ACLU, which has been and continues to be an enemy of the state to this day.
on Feb 12, 2006
You're forgetting that he was born in another time: 1885 to be exact. If you want to take quotes out of context, here are a few more for you:


Jefferson, Adams & Grant were all correct, then & now. What exactly was out of context?
on Feb 14, 2006
What exactly was out of context?

Again why I love trolls... they come in, plop a poopie down, and don't have to clean up after themselves.
I, like Daiwa, wonder what Baldwin quotes were taken out of context? I'm still not seeing it...
on Feb 14, 2006
good article dave, I too think the aclu is one of the most dangerous orginazations in america.

Trolls are like those little "floaters" in the toilet, no matter how much you flush they just will not go away.
on Feb 14, 2006
on Feb 14, 2006
Nice
on Feb 14, 2006

#2 by musicguy (Anonymous user)
Sunday, February 12, 2006


Maybe you should just stick to music.
on Feb 14, 2006
I love trolls. They are a great way to keep your mind sharp. - singrdave

I really don't see how post #2 qualifies as a 'troll post'. The poster used no derogatory language, made no smear attacks, and attempted to illustrate a point using researched quotes.

I guess because the poster doesn't regularly post here and used an 'anonymous' or non-registered account, he is automatically a troll? Come now.

What I enjoy is my feeling that everyone who posted in response felt a certain chord strummed by the poster's point.

The ACLU doesn't have an 'agenda' - but they do have a mission, that mission statement is found here: Link.

The heart of the mission statement says this:

The American system of government is founded on two counterbalancing principles: that the majority of the people governs, through democratically elected representatives; and that the power even of a democratic majority must be limited, to ensure individual rights.

Majority power is limited by the Constitution's Bill of Rights, which consists of the original ten amendments ratified in 1791, plus the three post-Civil War amendments (the 13th, 14th and 15th) and the 19th Amendment (women's suffrage), adopted in 1920.

The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:



Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.



Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.



Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.



Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.



Sounds like the only 'agenda' of the ACLU is to KEEP AMERICA FREE.

So singrdave, what is the insidious agenda you referred to?


on Feb 14, 2006
No, the ACLU is pursuing a more insidious agenda?


at very least, they shoulda let rush spend a few nights in the clink before they took his case.
on Feb 14, 2006
My problem with the ACLU is their opposition to sex offender lists and their defence of NAMBLA and others like them.
on Feb 15, 2006
My problem with the ACLU is their opposition to sex offender lists and their defence of NAMBLA and others like them.


You can't claim to defend the constitutional freedoms if you don't defend the unsavoury ones as much as the PC. From what I've seen of ACLU's work they do a lot of good, and on the issues where they take a platform-required but morally suspect stance they get struck down, so no big deal.

I'm glad there's organisations like the ACLU and the EFF in the US, cos without them conditions would be worse world-wide.
on Feb 15, 2006
and their defence of NAMBLA


nothing i know about nambla excuses nor mitigates its existence. in a better world, there would be no such thing.

abhorrent as it and its members may be, until it and they do something illegal, squelching their outrageous message does as much damage as censoring mohammed cartoons.

if nambla injures people or destroys property--whether by intention or negligence--they, like cartoonists or anyone else equally responsible, can and should be hauled into court to have the facts tried. should they be found liable, they should be made to compensate their victims.

that doesn't mean they aren't entitled to a defense...especially when this is the kinda case made against them.

28. Prior to joining NAMBLA Charles Jaynes was heterosexual

118. As a direct and proximate result of the urging, advocacy conspiring and promoting of pedophile activity by NAMBLA, Radow, Powers, Thorstad, Miller, Herman, Hunter, Schoen, Charles Jaynes became obsessed with having sex with a raping young male children

106) The Defendant John Doe Inc.'s malicious, willful, wanton or reckless conduct directly and proximately caused the death of Jeffrey J. Curley under such circumstances that Jeffrey J. Curley could have recovered damages for personal injuries if his death had not resulted.

note that joe doe inc is an internet service provider.

in other words, the the killer-rapists were not responsible for their behavior because they were led astray by the internet.
on Feb 15, 2006
"You can't claim to defend the constitutional freedoms if you don't defend the unsavoury ones as much as the PC."


There's a difference between defending rights and inventing new ones. By stating that disseminating public information is somehow NOT the right of the government, they deny our right to have easy access to that information.

"abhorrent as it and its members may be, until it and they do something illegal, squelching their outrageous message does as much damage as censoring mohammed cartoons."


I know where you are coming from, and I agree to a point. The ACLU walks a fine line with they represent the rights of people who are trying to rob others of rights. That's one reason they are so hesitant to represent anti-abortion folks, and it would be understandable to me if they didn't at all considering they consider that a right. They put themselves in the position of being on the other side of the courtroom from the people they represent constantly.\

I guess that is what is so maddening about them to many people. It's a blind ideal. It's hard to get your mind around the idea that they are trying to make the world a better place when they so often represent people that are trying their best to accomplish things totally counter to the aims of the ACLU.
2 Pages1 2