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 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Feb 15, 2006
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.


Sorry KB but what they stand for is illegal in the first place. "North American Man/Boy Love Association".
on Feb 15, 2006
"Sorry KB but what they stand for is illegal in the first place. "North American Man/Boy Love Association".


Well, some might say that the NRA stands for illegal activities, too, considering they are fighting to repeal gun ownership laws. The difference to me is that the acts that NAMBLA wants to permit immediately conflict with other people's rights, i.e. the right of children to be free from victimization.

People like MLK condoned breaking the laws to protect people's rights. NAMBLA thinks they are protecting kids rights to have sex with skanky old people. There are times you have to decide that blind fairness might not be the best policy.
on Feb 15, 2006
Cacto:
if you don't defend the unsavoury ones as much as the PC.

Have you noticed that the most unsavory ones are the ones that are "politically correct"?! ::

Baker:
The ACLU walks a fine line with they represent the rights of people who are trying to rob others of rights.

And I am all for defending the rights of citizens. But when an organization takes a clear and unwelcome social agenda, and does so on the grounds of a mandate from the masses, that organization goes too far.
Does not matter whether the organization in question is the ACLU or the NRA.

And speaking of the NRA...
Well, some might say that the NRA stands for illegal activities, too, considering they are fighting to repeal gun ownership laws.

The NRA's basis for existence is the second amendment to the Constitution.

And speaking of the constitution... (do you like how this all segues together?)
Deference:
The ACLU doesn't have an 'agenda' - but they do have a mission

And thank you very much for finding the mission statement of the ACLU. I appreciate the posting because it illuminates the dialogue.

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.

The freedom to burn flags... freedom to piss on Jesus Christ's image... freedom to associate with young boys and have sex with them...

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

Unless you happen to belong to a church that tends towards social conservativism. The City of Salt Lake sold a parcel of downtown property to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who wanted to turn it into a park. A park open to the public, but on private property. Since it was on private property, the Church felt it could enforce certain rules, like no public protests, no loud music, no smoking. The ACLU intervened, trying to prevent the Church from banning those activities on its own property. After several appeals on both sides, a few years, and no small amount of money, the courts finally stated that the Church could enforce its rules on its own property.

From KSL.com:
A civil liberties lawyer says a deal giving control of a downtown Salt Lake City plaza to the Mormon church must be overturned -- because it gives church officials police power over a public area, violating the constitution.

American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Mark Lopez told a three-judge appeals court panel in Denver this morning that Salt Lake City retains some authority over the plaza, and must enforce free-speech rights.

A 2003 agreement called for the city to give up a guarantee of public access to the plaza, in exchange for church-owned land elsewhere in the area.

But Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints attorney Alan Sullivan claims the agreement guaranteed the church the right to refuse public access, and enforce its own rules.

on Feb 15, 2006

at very least, they shoulda let rush spend a few nights in the clink before they took his case.

They did not take his case.  The filed an Amicus Curie Brief.

on Feb 15, 2006
what they stand for is illegal in the first place


it's only illegal when acted upon. i can read & write about using drugs or committing burglaries nonstop for the next year without violating any laws. i can also legally call for the decriminalization of both drug use and burglary. i can legally display images of drug paraphenalia and burglary tools as well. it's totally legal to post first person accounts describing all the pleasures and profits to be had by engaging in both activities.

you--or someone you rob--can attempt have me arrested or file a civil suit to collect for damages by claiming any or all of my actions described above caused you to engage in the use of drugs and/or to commit burglary. to win, you'll have to convince a judge and/or jury danish cartoonists are responsible for causing a mob to burn down an embassy.
on Feb 15, 2006
Well, some might say that the NRA stands for illegal activities, too, considering they are fighting to repeal gun ownership laws. The difference to me is that the acts that NAMBLA wants to permit immediately conflict with other people's rights, i.e. the right of children to be free from victimization.


Some might say it, but they'd be mightily wrong. What the NRA stands for is ALL about the second amendment. Now "how" is that illegal? Just an FYI baker.....most gun ownership laws are considered unconstitutional. Most of the laws you're referring too limit a constitutional right given to the citizens of the US.

Now what NAMBLA stands for is a perversion and that is something that is "not" guaranteed by the constitution.
on Feb 15, 2006
Now what NAMBLA stands for is a perversion and that is something that is "not" guaranteed by the constitution.

Aren't NAMBLA's defenders using the 1st Amendment's "freedom of assembly" provision?
That's how the Boy Scouts were able to withstand the ACLU assault.
on Feb 15, 2006
And thank you very much for finding the mission statement of the ACLU. I appreciate the posting because it illuminates the dialogue. - Singrdave

My pleasure. I always like to add to the dialogue...particularly when it is so tolerably conducted.
2 Pages1 2