Rush Reads a Post From Stop the ACLU!
Oct 23, 2006 Stop the ACLU
On today’s Rush Limbaugh show, Rush read a piece from one of my favorite sites, Stop The ACLU. The article, entitled Newsweak Poll Is Good News For Republicans (After The Disection)!!! was written by Oak Leaf and provides some great insight into a recent poll.
Feel free to listen to it here or to download it (right click and save as).
Congrats to the folks over at STACLU!
Stop the ACLU Blogburst 10-19-2006
Oct 19, 2006 Stop the ACLU
Crossposted from Stop The ACLU
This week the ACLU held its 2006 membership conference. Over 1,500 moonbats from across the U.S. gathered to listen to the ACLU alarmist exaggerations and lies. The event was televised on CSPAN and there were some interesting moments such as when Justice Scalia slam dunked Nadine Strossen in a debate about the bill of rights.
One of the more humorous highlights of the ACLU’s conference this week was when Bush signed the Military Tribunal Bill into law. The ACLU came up with one of its most clever and cute full page ads to date in which they claimed to be “the most conservative organization in America.â€
To highlight concerns with the act, the ACLU took out a full page advertisement in today’s Washington Post, calling itself “the most conservative organization in America.†Since its founding, the ACLU has fought to conserve the system of checks and balances and defend the Bill of Rights.
I guess this claim is technically true. They do more work to “conserve” political correctness, protections for terrorists and traitors, and judicial activism than any other organization out there. I guess it all just depends on what one is trying to conserve.
One thing the ACLU is not trying conserve is a Conservative majority in Congress. As a matter of fact they are actively working against this. One of the most honest moments of the ACLU conference was when Caroline Fredrickson came out in reference to a pending NSA surveillance bill and rooted for the Democrats.
The eavesdropping bills’ fate in the short, post-election session that is set to begin next month hinges on whether Republicans lose their leadership in either chamber, ACLU Washington Office Director Caroline Fredrickson said in an interview. “If Democrats take control, they won’t let a bad spying bill get jammed through,†she said.
As if putting out over a dozen political ads opposing particular candidates wasn’t enough to show their partisanship, Caroline just comes out and says it. What happened to the ACLU’s proud claim that they are “wholly non-partisan, neither liberal nor conservative, Republican nor Democrat?†Nevermind that old cliche slogan, the ACLU now claim they are the most Conservative organization. So lets look at some of the things they are trying to conserve this election season.
One thing the ACLU is working to conserve is voter fraud. Conserving the right to vote for illegal immigrants, convicted felons, and dead people goes right along with the ACLU’s agenda to get dhimmicrats elected this election cycle. The ACLU expressed its disappointment when the House passed the Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006,†requiring voters to present a government-issued photo ID in order to vote in federal elections. In Missouri at least 16 St. Louis area Democrats were found guilty of election crimes in the last year and a half and now there is even more fraud going on. When Republican Gov. Matt Blunt signed a law requiring voters to provide I.D. the ACLU represented a group of Democrats to challenge the law. It was successful in striking down a similar law in Georgia and with the help of the 9th Circuit Arizona as well. They also fought voter ID laws in New Mexico, Michigan, and Indiana. Unfortunately for the ACLU they may not be able to pull things off in time over in Indiana.
A federal appeals court judge says the panel is unlikely to rule on an Indiana law requiring people to show government-issued photo ID at the polls before the November seventh election.
The Seventh US Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago heard arguments in the case Wednesday.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana is asking a three-judge panel to overturn the state law.
ACLU attorney Ken Falk says there’s no evidence of the vote fraud that the law is aimed at eliminating. He says Indiana’s requirements to obtain identification are too cumbersome.
But Thomas Fisher of the Indiana Attorney General’s office argued that the ACLU and the Indiana Democratic Party failed to find a single person who would not be eligible to vote under the law.
Yes, I guess it is difficult to get dead people to show up at court.
What the ACLU is really seeking to conserve is a 9/10 mindset for America. They hope to conserve privacy rights for terrorists. They want a Democrat controlled Congress and they are not ashamed to admit it. They know this is the only way they can be successful striking down the NSA legislation and other important terror bills and tools that come may come along. They fear legislation currently pending in the Senate to strip them of their taxpayer funded attorney’s fees in Establishment Clause cases, and they know a Democrat controlled Senate is the sure fire way to kill it.
Concerned with illegal immigration? If you think we are not making any progress now, just imagine the slow down with the Democrats in control. The ACLU will be right their lobbying against every effort to secure the border. The ACLU’s agenda is pushed by more than just the courts. Want more conservative judges put on the bench? Let the loony liberals gain power and you can kiss that goodbye as well.
One sure fire way to help the ACLU progress its agenda against America is to stay at home during election time. Discouraged by the polls? Dan Riehl can help you put things back in perspective. Don’t get discouraged and allow the liberals to gain power. Get out and vote.
This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already on-board.
Trackback:
Lord Nazh’s Daily ramble | Jo’s Cafe | Cao’s Blog | A Lady’s ruminations | The Amboy Times | Woman honor Thyself | Interested Participant | Conservative Thinking | The Uncooperative Blogger | The Wide Awakes
Stop The ACLU Blogburst 10-12-06
Oct 12, 2006 Stop the ACLU
Crossposted from Stop The ACLU
Imagine if a Church used the power of its tax exemption as a lever towards political campaigns. Can you imagine the outrage from groups like the ACLU if a Church used its tax exempt donations to create political ads opposing candidates that did not adhere to certain “American values” as interpreted by that Church? What if a Christian Religious organization were to use its official title to oppose certain political issues such as abortion?
We don’t have to imagine, the ACLU’s history shows us. They would challenge that Church’s tax exempt status.
“In 1970, the year after the ACLU issued its first policy opposing the tax exempt status for churches; it accepted the advice of church and state extremist Leo Pfeffer and drafted a brief opposing tax exemptions in Waltz v. Tax Commission. In 1987, the ACLU Foundation and the New York Civil Liberties Union filed an amicus brief in support of Abortion Rights Mobilization to secure standing in a suit challenging the tax exempt status of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church was charged with violating its tax-exempt status by taking a stand against abortion.”Source
However the ACLU’s official policy goes even further. In the ACLU’s eyes a Church doesn’t even have to be politically involved to deserve having its tax exempt status stripped.
During the 1988 presidential campaign the ACLU was brought under the spotlight. Michael Dukakis, the democrat nominee, proudly stated, “I’m a card-carrying member of the American Civil Liberties Union.” These words would soon come back to haunt him. I will not focus too much on this campaign other than using it as evidence of the ACLU’s position on the tax exemption of churches. However, Dukakis’s association with this group proved to be a major factor in his defeat.
During the first debate, Peter Jennings of ABC asked George Bush why he continued to make an issue out of Dukakis’s membership in the ACLU. Bush replied that he didn’t like most of the ACLU’s positions and offered four of them. We will just focus on the one we are talking about right now. Bush said, “I don’t think they’re right to try to take away the tax exemption of the Catholic Church.”
The ACLU doesn’t deny their position! Norman Dorsen, president of the American Civil Liberties Union from 1976 to 1991, refuted Bush’s statements, and said that the ACLU opposes tax exemption for all churches, not just the Catholic Church.Source
Here is a little more history on the issue from Twilight of Liberty.
“ACLU founder Roger Baldwin once told me that the ACLU’s desire to strip the churches of their tax exempt status was “very foolish.” But in 1969, some nineteen years after Baldwin stepped down as executive director, the Union adopted its first policy opposing “tax exemption for church property which is used exclusively for religious purposes.’ In the latest policy on this subject, it makes no difference to the Union whether church property is not used exclusively for religious purposes, all are denied: “The ACLU opposes tax benefits for religious bodies”, seven examples are listed for clarification, including the benefit of tax exemption.”Source
The ACLU proudly claims that they are “wholly non-partisan.†It portrays itself as an objective organization that is “neither liberal nor conservative, Republican nor Democrat.†They say instead that they are “a public interest organization devoted exclusively to protecting the basic civil liberties of all Americans.†However, while the ACLU was taking aim at the Catholic Church’s tax exempt status, the Union affiliate in Providence, Rhode Island, came out in favor of a tax exemption for Wiccans. They went and got a tax administrator to rule that a coven of witches were entitled the same tax-exemption as churches had.
Does this sound like the position of a “nonpartisan” group? Does it sound like the position of a group that should be tax exempt? What happened to opposing tax exemptions on all religious bodies? Pick your policy. Either oppose it for all, or fight to expand it to all. You can’t claim non-partisanship while opposing it for one religious body and fighting to expand it to others.
Now imagine if an organization claiming to be non-partisan used the power of its tax exemption as a lever towards political campaigns. What if this organization used its funds to create political ads opposing candidates that did not adhere to certain “American values” as interpreted by that organization?
We don’t have to imagine, the ACLU’s hypocrisy shows us. It also has once again brought it into internal division as one local branch thinks it crossed the line. The Political Pit Bull has video of this being talked about on O’Reilly.
Leaders of the ACLU’s Connecticut affiliate have objected to an advertisement placed by the national ACLU that ran in the Hartford Courant late last month. The advertisement focused on Senator Lieberman, a Democrat who is running as an independent after losing a primary bid to an anti-war candidate, Ned Lamont.
“Will Senator Joe Lieberman pass this test on American values?†the ad asks. It features Mr. Lieberman’s photograph and office telephone number, along with warnings about pending legislation about detainees, torture, and wiretapping. “Tell Joe Lieberman his votes on this assault on American values will help determine your vote in November,†the ad says.
The chairman of the board of the Connecticut ACLU, Don Noel Jr., said he and several other board members felt it breached the organization’s pledge to stay out of electoral politics.
“It seemed to us to cross the line on partisanship, or to cross the line on not being nonpartisan,†Mr. Noel told The New York Sun yesterday. “I have complained and the national office has agreed with me. They have said they are sorry this might have been seen as partisan.†NY Sun
The ACLU has consistently abused its tax exempt status by claiming to be non-partisan. However, a simple glimpse at the ACLU’s record shows many examples of how this is untrue. While the ACLU has proudly made abortion its number one priority it has not only ignored the free speech of abortion protesters but actively fought to silence them.
William Donohue accurately argues:
“Social reform, in a liberal direction, is the sine qua non of the ACLU. Its record, far from showing a momentary wavering from impartiality, is replete with attempts to reform American society according to the wisdom of liberalism. The truth of the matter is that the ACLU has always been a highly politicized organization.”Source
Throughout its history the ACLU has revealed its partisanship. It opposed the Viet Nam War. It demanded unilateral nuclear disarmament. It called for disinvestment in South Africa. It violated its own policy in order to stymie the nomination of William Rehnquist to the Supreme Court. During the eight years of the Reagan Administration, it blasted the President with one invective after another much as it does today with President Bush. It led the fight to defeat the confirmation of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court and more recently the confirmation of Samuel Alito. It frequently writes speeches for candidates that it likes. It lobbies its cause to Congress. Did you know that it has divided itself into two groups? The ACLU and the ACLU Foundation. This allows them to work the courts with one hand while being paid by taxpayer funding when the win, and lobby to Congress with the other. It even issues scorecards on Senators and Representatives evaluating their performance according to the ACLU’s own ideological measuring stick. Source
The American Civil Liberties Union is destroying America’s culture and Constitution, while the federal government allows it to operate as a nonprofit, tax-exempt charitable organization. Non-profit organizations are not supposed to spend their tax-exempt assets on political campaigning, because that is not the purpose for which they were given the exemption. Furthermore, if an organization is to benefit by claiming non-partisanship it should practice that concept consistently and be held to those standards, unlike the ACLU’s double standard practices.
As a result of the above examples and much more, I believe that the ACLU has forfeited its right to operate as a tax-exempt organization. It is a political organization and should not be subsidized by my tax dollars. The IRS should do away with tax exemptions of political organizations hiding behind the mask of being non-profit and non-partisan. If only we could find some politicians willing to push for it.
This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already on-board.
Stop The ACLU 10-5-06
Oct 5, 2006 Stop the ACLU
A Short History Of The ACLU
Crossposted from Stop The ACLU
Hat tip: Ban The ACLU This was found on youtube and it’s pretty short at 3 minutes. I wish I could find more footage somewhere. It is an accurate account of the ACLU’s founding. Does the ACLU’s communist founding mean anything about what the ACLU is today? Well, if you plant a lemon seed would you expect the tree to produce peaches? Compare their current goals to the 45 communist goals in the Congressional Record and decide for yourself.
One of the greatest myths about the ACLU is that they started out as a noble cause. The roots of a tree go deep. There is no question that it was founded on communist/socialist principles. There is no question to the founder of the ACLU, Roger Baldwin’s, ideals.
I have been to Europe several times, mostly in connection with international radical activitiesand have traveled in the United States to areas of conflict over workers rights to strike and organize. My chief aversion is the system of greed, private profit, privilege and violence which makes up the control of the world today, and which has brought it to the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and unemploymentTherefore, I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itselfI seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.
Only after the Nazi-Soviet Non-Agression Pact of 1939, which allowed Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party to take over much of Eastern Europe, did Mr. Baldwin become disenchanted with the Soviet version of Communism. Yet Baldwin held Communist/Socialist sympathies to the end of his life. Later in life, he said,…
“Anti-communism never affected our civil liberties very much. And the Communist party in the United States was certainly never strong enough to be a menace at any time in any way. The only menace was the people who believed in a Communist dictatorship, which is a denial of civil liberties. They did not belong with us in a leadership position.”Source
Baldwin rid the ACLU board of overt Communists because of his anger about the Nazi-Soviet pact, establishing a policy that read, in part: “The Board of Directors and the National Committee of the American Civil Liberties Union….hold it inappropriate for any person to serve on the governing committees of the Union or its staff, who is a member of any political organization which supports totalitarian dictatorship in any country, or who by his public declarations indicates his support of such a principle.” Source
While Mr. Baldwin made a great show of the Communist purge in 1940 he never let go of his passion for socialist ideals. Neither did the ACLU. In 1961 numerous communist connections were entered into the Congressional Record. In November of 1964 the ACLU came to the defense of Communist-front organizations. The Union argued that there was a fundamental difference between a Communist-action organization and a Communist-front group.
Throughout the 1960s many members of the ACLU took umbrage at the principles of the 1940 Resolution. According to William Donohue’s book, The Politics of the American Civil Liberties Union, a 1967 Resolution was viewed by many on the board that voted for it to supersede and effectively rendered the 1940 Resolution impotent. In April of 1967 the ACLU board voted to rescind the 1940 decision of ousting Elizabeth Gurley Flynn for her uncompromising support for Communism. More important than the vote to recognize Flynn was the board’s conclusion that “the expulsion of Ms. Flynn was not consonant with the basic principles on which the ACLU was founded and has acted for fifty-four years.” The board also agreed that language should be drafted to indicate its happiness with the removal of the 1940 Resolution from the ACLU constitution in 1967.”
Today’s ACLU still espouses the ideals of socialism under the guise of liberalism. They still defend Communist propaganda. One of the goals of the Communist agenda is to abolish all loyalty oaths. It is interesting that the ACLU celebrate the fact that they will not sign oaths promising not to support terrorism.
Whether today’s ACLU is a communist/socialist organization or not their goals most definitely align with the ideologies of socialism. Regardless of what one label today’s ACLU there are many dangerous positions in practice that have never changed with them. Their unflinching support of abortion, euthanasia, their strange position on the Second Amendment and their open border policy are just a few examples. They consistently work to thwart the government’s efforts to protect its citizens, undermine America’s sovereignty, and defend America’s enemies. They have defended traitors funding Hamas, the PLO, and confessed Al-Qaeda operatives. All of these seem to support their founder’s goal of abolishing of the State itself.
This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already on-board.
Trackbacks:
A lady’s Ruminations | T F Stern’s rantings | Ogre’s Politics and Views | Conservative Outpost | Woman Honor Thyself | Hillbilly White Trash | Third World County | Jo’s Cafe | TMH’s Bacon Bits | Adam’s Blog | Wide Awakes Radio | Gribbit’s Word | The Wide Awakes | Conservative Thinking | The Uncooperative Blogger
Stop The ACLU Blogburst 9-28-06
Sep 28, 2006 Stop the ACLU
Crossposted from Stop The ACLU:
In case you haven’t heard, a group of dissenters from the ACLU are rebelling and calling for a change in the current leadership of the main organization. The summary of things this new group is fed up with is hypocrisy and the ACLU is full of it. Purging the ACLU of its hypocrisy is bound to be a goliath task.
Where do we even begin with the ACLU’s hypocrisy? How about its odd stance on the Second Amendment? They have decided that the term “the people” that is contained in the Second Amendment does not apply to “the people” as it does in all of the other rights contained in the Bill of Rights. They defend even the most radical in free speech for individuals, but somehow have adopted the opposite position on the Second Amendment. Surely it couldn’t be that the Second Amendment doesn’t fall within the boundaries of their liberal agenda! Could it?
In August of 2005 the New York ACLU sued against random bag searches on the NY Subway. Ironically the NYCLU HQ has a sign warning visitors that all bags are subject to search.
The ACLU have fought tooth and nail against the Bush administration’s NSA program, a program designed to track international phone calls being made to or from suspected terrorist organizations. They have hailed themselves defenders of the right to privacy and labelled the program an illegal “secret” program of “domestic spying”. All the while the ACLU has its own “secret ” program of domestic spying of its own members and their personal financial information. This program has nothing to do with national security and everything to do with the real bottom line of fundraising. Former ACLU board member Michael Myers was shocked at this discovery.
The American Civil Liberties Union is using sophisticated technology to collect a wide variety of information about its members and donors in a fund-raising effort that has ignited a bitter debate over its leaders’ commitment to privacy rights.
Some board members say the extensive data collection makes a mockery of the organization’s frequent criticism of banks, corporations and government agencies for their practice of accumulating data on people for marketing and other purposes.
The group’s new data collection practices were implemented without the board’s approval or knowledge and were in violation of the ACLU’s privacy policy at the time, according to Michael Meyers, vice president of the organization and a frequent internal critic. He said he had learned about the new research by accident Nov. 7 during a meeting of the committee that is organizing the group’s Biennial Conference in July.
He objected to the practices, and the next day, the privacy policy on the group’s Web site was changed. “They took out all the language that would show that they were violating their own policy,” Meyers said. “In doing so, they sanctified their procedure while still keeping it secret.”
After spending 23 years on the ACLU board, the “defenders of free speech” issued gag orders to him, not to speak about the issue. Now thats free speech for you.
When it comes to free speech the ACLU claim to be its most steadfast defender. Now, I am not an absolutist on unlimited free speech. However, most people would think that an organization arguing for hate cults to protest with “God Hates Fags” signs at military funerals, neo nazis to march through Jewish neighborhoods, and that child porn distribution is protected by the First Amendment are about as absolutist as it gets. Not so!
When it comes to pro-life protesters the ACLU could care less about their free speech rights. As a matter of fact they actively fight against pro-life protesters’ free speech and have even tried RICO lawsuits on them. It is scary to see just how far the ACLU will go for its unrestricted abortion agenda. Free speech definitely takes a backseat to their pro-abortion agenda. They have even listed it as their number one priority pushing the defense of the First Amendment, the alleged heart and soul of the ACLU’s mission, down to third on the list, after civil rights.
But don’t just take my word for it, listen to the words of a former Execuitve Director:
The right to express unpopular opinions, advocate despised ideas and display graphic images is something the ACLU has steadfastly defended for all of its nearly 80-year history.
But the ACLU, a group for which I proudly worked as executive director of the Florida and Utah affiliates for more than 10 years, has developed a blind spot when it comes to defending anti-abortion protesters. The organization that once defended the right of a neo-Nazi group to demonstrate in heavily Jewish Skokie, Ill., now cheers a Portland, Ore., jury that charged a group of anti-abortion activists with $107 million in damages for expressing their views. Gushed the ACLU’s press release: “We view the jury’s verdict as a clarion call to remove violence and the threat of violence from the political debate over abortion.”
Were the anti-abortion activists on trial accused of violence? No. Did they threaten violence? Not as the ACLU or Supreme Court usually defines it, when in the context of a call for social change.
The activists posted a Web site dripping with animated blood and titled “The Nuremberg Files,” after the German city where the Nazis were tried for their crimes. Comparing abortion to Nazi atrocities, the site collected dossiers on abortion doctors, whom they called “baby butchers.” …
This is ugly, scary stuff. But it is no worse than neo-Nazi calls for the annihilation of the Jewish people, or a college student posting his rape fantasies about a fellow coed on the Web, both of which the ACLU has defended in the past.
Defending NAMBLA to print material advocating for sex between grown men and boys is the definition of defending “robust freedom of speech” in the ACLU’s book, but defending people’s right to protest against killing the unborn somehow fails to make the list.
But the hypocrisy does not end there. When it comes to protecting religious expression the ACLU has proven itself to be number one in America’s religious censors. They have consistently shown themselves to be hostile towards Christianity in particular. When the Tangipahoa Parish School Board in Louisiana opened its board meetings with a prayer like they had for 30 years the ACLU sued. After the ACLU won that case and the School Board ignored the court ruling, Louisiana ACLU chief Joe Cook called for them to be jailed and compared them to terrorists. Mr. Cook is currently leading an attack on plan for a Katrina memorial paid for with private funds to be errected on private land simply because it is in the shape of a cross and might offend some sensitive passerby. When valedictorian of Foothill High, Brittany McComb, decided to share her faith voluntarily at her graduation cermony the ACLU said it was the right call to pull the plug. Currently when the ACLU wins a case from attacking religious expression it is awarded attorneys fees, often in the millions, at the expense of the American taxpayer. The U.S. House of Representatives recognized this abuse and passed the Public Expression Of Religion Act to put a stop to it. However, the threats and abuse will continue however if we can’t convince the Senate to pass this as well.
But the hypocrisy goes even further. The ACLU’s disdain for free speech outside of its agenda extends beyond Christians and pro-lifers to its own dissenting members. Very recently the ACLU attempted to put forth a policy restricting the free speech of its own members.
Natt Hentoff, another former ACLU board member, was incredulous.
“For the national board to consider promulgating a gag order on its members — I can’t think of anything more contrary to the reason the A.C.L.U. exists.”
After a huge controversy, media coverage, and public concern of the NY Attorney General’s office the ACLU dropped the proposal. Instead they switched to more effective measures of replacing or voting out the members that were not in line with their agenda.
When it comes to principles the ACLU has none other than lining their pocketbooks and furthering their own liberal agenda. As I said at the beggining of the article, cleansing the ACLU of hypocrisy will be a mammoth task. I don’t think its possible. I’m more hopeful that their own greed and corruption will eat them from the inside. I think we are beggining to see the cracks and hopefully enough light will shine through them to wake people up to the truth.
This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already on-board.