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.
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. Defending NAMBLA
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.
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
Labels: Abortion, ACLU, Christianity, Conservatism, Religion, Terrorism