Sunday, August 14, 2005

ACLU: Enemy Of The State

From Fox News we get word of groups who are making it their sacred task to fight the anti-American demons at the ACLU.

[[ Now the ACLU is facing a challenge from groups such as the Alliance Defense Fund, one of several Christian law firms formed in the 1990s.

From its base in Phoenix, the ADF says its goal is to defend religious liberty, the sanctity of human life and the traditional family against any person or group who attacks those principles.

"The ACLU has through the years filed a series of lawsuits that diminish the rights of Americans to understand their history, to exhibit in public, to exercise their faith in many ways," said ADF president and CEO Alan E. Sears. ]] (Link to story)

I think I found a new group to lend my support to... virtually ANY enemy of the ACLU is a freind of mine.

We all know about their jihad against the Boy Scouts... here are some more recent ACLU issues... you tell me they are not a problem...

- - ACLU Sues School Over Gay Pride Shirt Ban (LINK)

- - ACLU Leads Suit Over Federal Watch List Policy (LINK)

- - ACLU Row Over Federal Anti-Terrorist Policy (LINK)

- - ACLU Files Suit in Pa. Over Evolution (LINK)

We could go on all day... I suffice it to say that these people are one of the very top threats to our freedom. Why do we allow this?




Anonymous brian said...

I think we let them get by with some of this because the ACLU used to be a necessary evil. They're pushing the 'evil' a lot more than the 'necessary' these days though. There was a time when they actually stood for the civil liberties of Americans. Now they seem intent to trod on American civil liberties.

I'm always reminded of how they're suing a guy who held a batch of illegal immigrants at gunpoint until the police could arrive. The state made the point that he had made a completely lawful citizen's arrest. The ACLU, however, felt the need to assert the 'civil liberties' of these non-Americans. I don't ever recall breaking the law being considered a 'civil liberty,' nor do I consider illegal immigrants worthy of defense by an organization ostensibly for Americans.

More and more it sounds like the ACLU has ended their usefulness to society and should quietly be put out to pasture where they can't harm anyone anymore.

14/8/05 12:02  
Blogger kmg said...

Nice point, Brian... but they will not go "quietly"... in fact, their shrill voice is the only real power they have.

Question: Why do ILLEGAL immigrants even HAVE the same legal protections that Americans do?

Why are the terrorists we catch considered by these people to be protected by OUR civil rights laws AND by the Geneva Conventions??


14/8/05 12:08  
Anonymous brian said...

It is truly aggravating, and a point I argued in Poli Sci class last year. The US is intent on appearing to be the good guys (a worthy cause), so we graciously extend things like the protection of the Geneva Conventions to those who don't deserve it. I read up on the Conventions and POW status. Pretty much none of our terrorist friends in Gitmo, Afghanistan, or Iraq qualify. And yet, not only do we treat them well, far better than they deserve or have treated our soldiers, who obey the "laws of war," there are those in this country who think we should treat them better. I have friends who are worse off than those terrorists. I agree, it's very frustrating to try to convince people of this madness, that American liberties are not things that everyone appreciates or deserves.

14/8/05 12:25  
Blogger kmg said...

They are, indeed, better off than many Americans... most noteably, our military. They eat better, sleep better, and seem to have more rights.

We get absolutely no credit for bending over backward to cater to them... it is beyond disgusting to me.

14/8/05 12:34  
Anonymous brian said...

It would be nice to see the ACLU support the military for a change. Of course I'll probably be dead before they realize that our fine men and women in the Armed Forces are responsible for the very civil liberties that they supposedly defend, and that those soldiers willingly give up many liberties just to allow the average American, including those who, at least rhetorically, spit on them, to enjoy said liberties.

14/8/05 13:14  
Blogger kmg said...

Well, if they keep up the current pace of their operations unfettered, they just might inflict some fatal wounds on our national security... then, someday in the future, they will see firsthand how they needed the military, after all...

Small solace in that thought, though...

I'd rather support this group that is taking the fight to ACLU.

14/8/05 13:27  
Anonymous Brian said...

I think you're right there, kmg. Far better to support the opposition than just lie down and let the ACLU roll over us until the country falls apart. Particularly when the opposition is right.

14/8/05 13:36  
Blogger kmg said...

It never ceases to amaze how they have been able to get away with so much crap for so long... why are people so afraid of them? They are as far out of the mainstream as a group can get... and yet, they still weild enough power to attack our traditional institutions with impunity...

I wish our leaders would develop some intestinal fortitude and tell them the way it is.

14/8/05 13:53  
Anonymous Tsar Lazar said...

What the ACLU represents is the danger of declaring any value "absolute" short of those defined by Divine sources.
"Freedom of Speech" is an Enlightenment concept, not an eternal value. I am very much for maintaining it, but when it is abused by those who would destroy it the time has come to redefine just what that freedom entails. I do not think Oliver Wendell Holmes' old utilitarian maxim about shouting fire in a crowded theater is sufficient anymore.
As Brian makes in comments above, illegal activities are not protected by the guarantees in the Bill of Rights.
However, I disagree with his statement that the ACLU "used to be a necessary evil." If you look at its history, it has essentially defended lawbreakers throughout its history. Whether or not the laws that were broken were just or not(such as the laws prohibiting interracial marriage)is a matter of debate, but the record remains. The ACLU was doomed from the start to impale itself upon its own sword, particularly after a few successes gave them a reason for self-justification. And, in a nation where most of the old laws which did indeed trod upon civil liberties are a thing of the past, the ACLU has stretched to find reasons for its continued existence. It has done this by embracing radicalism and defending cases which are, by any reasonably standards, indefensible. They have been imploding for years, but like some 21st century Ahab they seem intent on drowing the rest of us as well. They need to go. I will support this new group without reservation...maybe we can limit the damage the ACLU causes in its death throes.

14/8/05 15:18  
Blogger kmg said...

The ACLU has, from its beginnings, been on the wrong side of the fence in America.

Known communists were a big part of its leadership in the early days, and most likely still are. The Marxist agenda has been very well served by these demons...

Here's a good site to see a bit of their history.

14/8/05 16:25  
Blogger husker_met said...

As a concept, a group like the ACLU should not even be necessary, if you accept that the Constitution comes complete with checks and balances installed to restrain the government.

If you accept the Liberal notion that the XIVth Amendment actually describes "Equal Protection" and applies the Federal Constitution to state law, the ACLU becomes even more unnecessary.

So, ipso facto, anyone who supports or advocates the existence of the ACLU is tacitly saying that the Constitution doesn't work.

Now that might be the case today, when the Constitution is being misrepresented and hammered into saying anything a non-constructionist judge wants it to say. But realistically, as it was designed in 1789, as long as the Constitution is adhered to (which, el trollo, it wasn't in the case of slavery or civil rights) you should not need an ACLU.

So then, why isn't the ACLU in favor of strict constructionism?

Could it be...drumming up business to justify it's own continued existence?

14/8/05 19:37  
Blogger kmg said...

More like... drumming up ANYTHING to continue its war on capitalism and freedom... to continue trying to march us straight into socialism, then right on down the road to marxville.

14/8/05 20:09  
Blogger husker_met said...

Whenever in doubt, I follow the money.

Just like all NGOs (Rainbow/Push, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc.), if there isn't a problem, you have a hard time getting donations.

Assuming the problem that the ACLU is supposed to fix is the denial of civil liberties, wouldn't the best answer to solving the problem be strict adherence to and application of the Constitution?

But that would solve the problem, and thereby give the ACLU no reason to exist.

We can't have that. Some of those peckerwoods have BMW payments to make.

14/8/05 20:21  
Blogger kmg said...

True... but the point is, they could be lawyers anywhere except the ACLU and make as much- if not more- money.

Their true motivations are- for most of them, I believe- more sinister. They are working toward a goal... and they are very idealogically geared up to get there.

Money is part of it... but passion for a cause is the real culprit.

14/8/05 20:38  
Anonymous brian said...

I think husker_met's got it there. Everybody wants to do make a buck. Hard to do that when you've put yourself out of business, so you just have to make something, anything up in order to do it. If that means embracing a radical opinion where anything and everything is a civil liberty that someone is treading on, just so that you can keep suing people and keep in business, so be it.

BTW, husker_met, I'm curious about the name. Are you a fellow Nebraskan?

14/8/05 20:42  
Anonymous Tsar Lazar said...

"So then, why isn't the ACLU in favor of strict constructionism?"

That's a great point, and I hadn't really come at the issue from that angle. In fact, their history shows them to be of the "living document" camp, rather than the constructionists. Perhaps calling themselves the American Civil Liberties Union was an unconscious bit of Newspeak...

A great point...thanks.

Pomoze Bog.
Tsar Lazar

14/8/05 21:51  
Blogger husker_met said...


Lincoln here for another month or so.

Then off to a much hotter and drier place for a couple of years...

14/8/05 23:19  
Blogger kmg said...

Hmmm... hotter and drier...

That means Fresno... or... someplace else...

14/8/05 23:23  
Blogger husker_met said...


Going to a slightly more civilized placed than that.

Who'd ever want to go to a backward place like Fresno? Particularly with third rate body armor?

14/8/05 23:30  
Blogger kmg said...

Trust me... you DO NOT want to be in Fresno with 3rd rate body armor!

15/8/05 00:22  
Anonymous Tsar Lazar said...

Hey, gentlemen, lay off Freso.

I am writing from the small West Valley farm town of Kerman, about 18 mi. west of Fresno.

Sure, the place is a dump, but its not a war zone. And at least the Central Valley tends to be conservative and mostly Republican, so we don't have goofballs for city leaders like they do in the Bay Area or Seattle. Hell, Fresno's current mayor is Alan "Bubba" Autry---not a bad guy, really. :)

Pomoze Bog.

Tsar Lazar

15/8/05 10:24  
Blogger kmg said...

I lived in Fresno two separate periods, for a total of about nine years. I like the area okay... I was just teasin'!

15/8/05 11:00  

Post a Comment


web counter
web counter