ACLU Coming To The Midwest


The ACLU is raising record amounts of money to infiltrate the Midwest with their perverse ideology.

No votes yet

Not being an expert on the ACLU, I went to Wikipedia to check them out. Here is what I found about their positions.
While the bulk of the ACLU's cases involve the First Amendment, Equal Protection, due process, and the right to privacy,[39] the organization has taken positions on a wide range of issues.
* Religious liberty: Defends the individual right of Americans of all religions to practice and/or display affirmations of their faith in public, but not on public property with government sponsorship or endorsement.[40][41]
* The decriminalization of drugs such as heroin, cocaine and marijuana.[45]
* Separation of church and state; under this mandate, the ACLU:
o Opposes the government-sponsored display of religious symbols on public property.
o Opposes official prayers, religious ceremonies, and some kinds of "moments of silence"[42] in public schools or schools funded with public money.
* Full freedom of speech and of the press, including school newspapers.
* Abolition of capital punishment.[43]
* Reproductive rights, including the right to use contraception and to have an abortion.
* Full civil rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, including government benefits for same-sex couples equal to those provided for heterosexual ones.
* Affirmative action as a means of redressing past discrimination and achieving a racially diverse student body.[44]
* The rights of defendants and suspects against unconstitutional police practices.
* Privacy as it "works to preserve the American tradition that the government not track individuals or violate privacy unless it has evidence of wrongdoing."[45]
* Immigrants' rights by "challenging unconstitutional laws and practices, countering the myths upon which many of these laws are based."[46]
* Concerning the Second Amendment, specifically gun control, the ACLU embraces the States' Right Model interpretation of the Second Amendment, which only recognizes a state's right to possess firearms, the organization officially declares itself "neutral" on the issue of gun control, pointing to previous Supreme Court decisions such as United States v. Miller to argue that the Second Amendment applies to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, and that "except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of firearms by individuals is not constitutionally protected."[47]

The ACLU has opposed some campaign finance reform laws such as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which it considers an inappropriate restriction upon freedom of expression. It does not have a policy of blanket opposition to all laws on campaign finance.[48]

While the ACLU does oppose the use of crosses in public monuments,[49][50] there have been false allegations that the ACLU has urged the removal of cross-shaped headstones from federal cemeteries and has opposed prayer by soldiers; such charges have been deemed to be urban legends.[51]

The ACLU has for years been a controversial organization by nature,[52] with most of their support coming from the left and opposition from the right. The reasons for opposition are varied, although conservatives often view the ACLU stance of separation of church and state as anti-religious,[53] and their defense of both accused and convicted criminals as undermining law and order. Furthermore, the nature of the ACLU is that they defend even the most unpopular forms of speech and expression, notably those with which most other organizations would not wish to associate themselves. Often, its clients are notoriously unpopular such as Neo-Nazi organizations and the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), a group which supports lifting all age restrictions on pederasty. In the case of NAMBLA, the ACLU's Massachusetts affiliate represented the organization, on first amendment grounds, in a wrongful death civil suit that was based solely on the fact that a man who raped and murdered a child had visited the NAMBLA website.[54] Although the ACLU does not endorse NAMBLA's message, its defense of the group has been widely criticized. Additionally the ACLU has initiated several court cases involving government funding of organizations that discriminate against homosexuals and atheists, prominently including the Boy Scouts of America.[55]

I would personally disagree strongly with some of these positions including what they say about the Right to Bear Arms, the NAMBLA thing, the abolition of capital punishment, and a few others. But on the whole, I don't see what they are doing as being "perverse" or an "ideology" unless you see advocacy for the Bill of Rights as being a perverse ideology. For the most part, they seem to be against the unrestrained use of government power and are willing to take unpopular positions. Their position in many -but not all- areas seems to be a classically conservative, Libertarian one against government power and for individual liberties. That can't be all bad.

The liberalism of the ACLU borders on extreme. As far as the Bill of Rights goes, Jefferson always felt that it should be rewritten every 50 years to grow and adjust with a growing country. That is something that has never happened. What we have now is an organization that is mandating contemporary changes against an outdated document. I personally do not feel that the Bill of Rights should be rewritten but the modern day interpretations are a bastardization of what it stands for.

I don't know where you found that Jefferson quote about 50 years. He said a lot of things over his long lifetime, including this: "It astonishes me to find... [that so many] of our countrymen... should be contented to live under a system which leaves to their governors the power of taking from them the trial by jury in civil cases, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of commerce, the habeas corpus laws, and of yoking them with a standing army. This is a degeneracy in the principles of liberty... which I [would not have expected for at least] four centuries." --Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1788.

I think it is fashionable to view the ACLU as having extreme liberal views, but could you point out, please, specifically which ones you are talking about? With the few exceptions that I have pointed out, they seem to be generally staunch supporters of the Constitution and individual liberties -something that should be applauded by all Americans as a bulwark against tyrannical government.

If protecting civil liberties is wrong, I don't want to be right. The founding fathers had pretty extreme liberal views in their day. Jefferson advocated rewriting the Constitutional every 19-20 years. I don't think the ACLU is out to rewrite the Bill of Rights--I think they're in favor of enforcing it.

Pink Slip

Pinkslip, I don't think you'll ever be accused of being right. The ACLU claims to fight for religious freedom...when in reality...they have been the sole organization responsible for wiping Christianity out of America. Sure, they'll defend any religion BUT Christianity.

The ACLU also supports all and any hardcore porn on the internet. Fighting against any legislation put into place to protect our children from being exposed to such filth.

Again, the ACLU is a perverse organization...destroying America by corrupting our society from within. Only when we rot all the way through...will we see our error in allowing the ACLU to exist

Kooz, you can't be serious. And you say, it is "destroying America". Only when we have fallen "will we see our error in allowing the ACLU to exist".

You sound like some kind of a fascist or communist. We shouldn't allow the ACLU exist? What other organizations and people would you like to liquidate and make non-existent? You don't sound like a patriotic American to me. You sound like the western counterpart of a radical Muslim cleric ready to cut people's heads off. Would you like to restart the Inquisition, oh grand inquisitor?

The ACLU has defended Christians, Kooz. The cases I know of involve Christians who were told by managers to remove their crucifixes while at work. Google those.

And the ACLU is doing the right thing about pornography on the Internet. If you don't like that content, you need to place similar controls on what your child is looking at. It's fairly easy to do with software, like Net Nanny. You already do such things routinely with TV and books, right? So ... why do you want to have the GOVERNMENT attack ALL PORNOGRAPHY when it's just a matter of YOUR parental duties? I know that I want to see pornography. How can I do that when you insist that it be removed? In short, what do your specific desires have to do with stopping me from exercising my own liberties? Surely you agree that as a grown man, I have every right to access pornography and watch people fuck, right? RIGHT?

The ACLU has a few quirks but they largely WILL defend rights fairly objectively. Defending the KKK? Can anyone tell me the laws that forbid racist speech and thought? Yeah, I didn't that there were any. Hence, the KKK merits defense.

In fact, it's organizations like the KKK that MOST require defense in this nation, since THEIR rights to peacefully assemble and speak are under assault. I can't recall the person who said it, but it's been said that speech that people don't like is that which most requires Constitutional protection. And you're proving that.

Kooz, please give some details about how this Christianity is being wiped out of America. Within 10 miles of me there must be over 100 Christian churches. I've even heard Christmas and Easter -- both Federal and state holidays -- have something to do with Christianity. Some wipeout!

I do believe that what you MEANT to say was that the ACLU has acted to keep Christianity out of the secular realm where it had no business being in the first place. Am I right?

Sure, they'll defend any religion BUT Christianity

Yeah, except for all of these times. It would seem you are misinformed again.

Pink Slip

Often, its clients are notoriously unpopular such as Neo-Nazi organizations and the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA)

This is the same ACLU that cheerfully defends the rights of the KKK and NAMBLA, but refuses to defend the right to bear arms. The BOR is not written to be cherry picked and polluted with politically correct amendments. Too bad the ACLU doesn't see it that way.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

I'll agree that the BOR isn't to be cherry picked and so I disagree strongly with some of ACLU's positions as I have read about them. It's a tough call for me because I believe the individual's constitutional rights have to be fought for against an oppressive majority and I would support them in that regard. They do support some pretty weird and disgusting cases though. NAMBLA is through the roof.

I'd really like them to take a hard look at private property rights and smoking bans in bars. That'll never happen though because it's not politically correct to smoke anymore. So nobody cares about their rights or the rights of a private business to welcome consenting smokers.

That any one religion is being wiped out.

It is alive and well and on TV, billboard, radio, internet and so on and will be here for as long as mankind is still around.

Nice day to go fishing for responses.

To begin with, any organization that does not uniformly support the Bill of Rights and, in the same breath, claims to do so by its name is not the sort of organization I support. Swing one, swing all I say. I suspect that the ACLU is for sale to the right bidder, and given the federal government's stand against the right to bear arms, I suspect that the ACLU has been bought and paid for.

When I was back there in elementary school, we said the Lord's prayer and pledged allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. Some busybody objected to the Lord's prayer, and the ACLU helped to strike that activity. Some other fathead objected to the pledge - Jehovah's Witnesses? I don't recall - and the ACLU jumped on that band wagon as well. The thing is, when it comes to separation of Church and State, the ACLU is right.

The trouble here is that the public school system is already failing in many parts of the US. Look at Pickett elementary. That school couldn't find instructors to teach Johnny to read. Just who do you think will be teaching Christianity at Pickett? Then you have the many delightful flavors of Christianity, from the idolatrous Catholics and their various statues and holidays right through the Hellfire and Damnation Baptists, smacking into every Christian cult along the way replete with their holier than thou philosophy and tacit condemnation of everyone who is not one of them.

You want to teach kids to hate? Just bring on some of that old time religion.

I haven't even mentioned the various other religions, such as Islam, Inuit pagan deities, witchcraft, straight money satan worshippers and that nutty cult from India that is supposed to have been exterminated years ago, Thuggee.

Now, kids being kids, they are likely to gravitate to whatever religion has the best floor show.

So even it you could get everyone to agree to teach Christianity, just who would you get to teach it? Because you'll get a lot of volunteers, and I lay you twenty to one that if you can find one actual Christian who is willing to undertake a class of elementary kids and who can actually teach the Bible, you'll have beaten the odds to death with a big stick.

And while I'm at it, why do you think Jesus had such a hard time? The Jews were waiting for someone that was a cross between Conan the Barbarian and Attila the Hun. They were going to get together a massive army and go flatten everything that wasn't Jewish. Instead, they got "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." What a let down!

Who do you think the kids will follow? Love your neighbor? Or, maybe, band together and string up anyone who isn't like us, then have a big party.

And that's one of the reasons why government and religion don't mix.

How've you been, GZ?

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

The ACLU picks the types of cases it represents and which areas of constitutional defense they specialize in - I find it hard to fault them for what they don't defend. As an organization, they can only do so much, and by their own website focus on the cases which target individuals who can't easily defend themselves. They are pretty straightforward about it on their website.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.