Posted on 05/19/2005 11:53:24 AM PDT by Jay777
Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) - http://www.alliancedefensefund.org
Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) - http://www.thomasmore.org
American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) - http://www.aclj.org
The Rutherford Institute - http://www.rutherford.org/
Stop the ACLU Coalition (GREATLY ORGANIZED ACTIVIST SITE..PLEASE JOIN) - http://www.stoptheaclu.org
Here are a few examples of how two of those organizations are fighting back:
ADF Contacts Over 3,600 School Districts Over Attempts To Censor Christmas
ADF: 700 lawyers ready to fight ACLU lawsuits
ADF: Pentagons' Warning About Boyscouts Is Absurd
Thomas More Law Center: Town of Palm Beach Pays $50,000 In Attorney Fees Apologizes To Women In Nativity Lawsuit
Additional information:
The ACLU must be destroyed: Joseph Farah supports Boy Scouts, urges Americans to fight back
Citizens mobilized to stop ACLU (seeks to consign group to 'ash heap of history')
ACLU fulfilling communist agenda
Revealing FACTS on the ACLU from its own writings
See how YOUR Senator or Representative ranks with the ACLU
This yahoo group just started on December 3, 2004 and is looking for new members
The Center For Reclaiming America (petitions to congress)
American Family Assn. Center for Law and Policy
"I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control of those who produced the wealth: communism is the goal." - Roger Baldwin, ACLU founder, Harvard Reunion Book, 1935
"The establishment of an American Soviet government will involve the confiscation of large landed estates in town and country, and also, the whole body to forests, mineral deposits, lakes, rivers and so on." - William Z. Foster, ACLU co-founder and former chairman, Communist Party USA.
Let me know if you would like to join my ACLU ping list
Why yes I would. Its called freedom.
I found myself scratching my head in wonder as i concentrated on the word "unregulated". I really don't have that much of an inner Puritan to embrace, so prostitution is not going to cause me to gasp in horror. But the fact that liberals are so concerned about AIDS (as well as other STD's....as we should all be), and the fact that most prostitutes are women who are in desperate circumstances subjected to abuse by their pimps and the johns they service, I can't understand why they would be so vociferous on unregulated prostitution. Or maybe I don't know the mind of the ACLU well enough yet.
Hey, something the ACLU and I agree upon. Just kidding :)
No surprise here. What I would give to see the complete and total destruction of the ACLU!
In the absence of laws against extramartial sex (unmarried, adultery, one night stands, same sex sodomy...) and against paying babysitters and anyone to mow your yard, there is little for the government TO regulate.
The Supreme Court sodomy decision can't prohibit sex acts in the bedroom. How will they know if you "paid" for sex or went on a date buying lavish gifts? Those gifts would be prohibited if we were talking about a lobbyist and a congressman. The appearance of improprity.
There are bartenders who are bedding a number of different women each week. They are also at risk of spreading venereal disease. There is nothing to regulate their sexual encounters. I know a friend who worked with one such "lucky" guy and he played six-degrees-of-separation with any woman he considered dating. If he could tie the woman within six sex partners (male or female) of the other guy, he would not go out with her.
Why yes I would. Its called freedom.
And if your roof collapses, the rumble that was your house can be a monument to the freedom of incompetent contractors to scam their clients.
This isn't about government intrusion...it's about quality, about assuring competence, and about holding incomptent practitioners of certain professions responsible for their shoddy work. Would you want an unlicensed dentist performing a root canal on you?
There's a point at which "freedom" simply becomes chaos, where the only law that applies is the law of the jungle. That's not libertarianism...that's just stupidity.
They're more interested in satisfying their own carnal animal lusts.
My place 130 years old and the roof is just fine thank you very much despite regular exposure to 80 mph winds and the occasional stray boulder.....Of course, it was recently modified by an unlicensed contractor.
Scammers can be dealt with via contract law.
This isn't about government intrusion...it's about quality, about assuring competence, and about holding incomptent practitioners of certain professions responsible for their shoddy work.
I see... Only a government can assure competence....LOL...And you wonder why Americans have a fiscal burden of government 2X higher than Communist China.
No, both male and female prostitution are illegal.
EggsZactly!!
"[A] State which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands even for beneficial purposes, will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished; and that the perfection of machinery to which it has sacrificed everything, will in the end avail it nothing, for want of the vital power which, in order that the machine might work more smoothly, it has preferred to banish." --John Stuart Mill, last paragraph in "On Liberty"
Everyone has carnal lusts and those who deny it are in trouble (one doesn't have to act out on them)
Who guarantees that the provisions of contracts actually protect both parties? In the Calif. Civil Code, as well in the Business and Professions Code (as well as other code sections, I'm sure), the law spells out what provisions should be in certain types of contracts. I think these are legitimate areas of "government intrusion" -- life and professional services have gotten so complex that the provider of such services really has the consumer at their mercy if all that protects the consumer is a contract put forward by the service provider.
We obviously disagree, although I respect your opinion. But I do believe that some regulation of private businesses and professions is justified and necessary. Government does have a role to protect or assure some level of safety, public health, and I would also say environmental quality. The air in southern California is much cleaner today than it was 30 years ago, not because car manufacturers thought there was money to be made in manufacturing less polluting vehicles, but because they were required to do so by statute-imposed environmental standards. The dark side of human nature makes a pure libertarian view of government unrealistic, IMHO.
Compare the typical American community, complete with zoning laws, building codes, health and safety standards, standards for waste disposal, etc. and so on, with the typical community that lacks these kind of laws (I don't know, Guadalajara maybe, or the "suburbs" of Mexico City), and what one will typically see among the "unregulated" communities are examples of living hellholes. But, I suppose everyone should have the right to live in a hellhole.
That's precisely what the ACLU doesn't want to hear.
So, I assume you agree that prostitutes should be licensed on the basis of their competenence and quality?
Actually, when regulated, STDs are more easily controlled. France had few problems when they had a regulated system with regular medical check-ups, but the moralists bonked it. Now there are more social problems, not fewer.
The people who sign it. Sheesh.
life and professional services have gotten so complex that the provider of such services really has the consumer at their mercy if all that protects the consumer is a contract put forward by the service provider.
Oh, please. Not the "world is too complicated for individual responsibility/we're too stupid to be free" argument.
The air in southern California is much cleaner today than it was 30 years ago, not because car manufacturers thought there was money to be made in manufacturing less polluting vehicles, but because they were required to do so by statute-imposed environmental standards.
I've been to Beijing, Managua,etc. I'm familiar with the problem. Air pollution is a classic case of the problem of collectively "owned" resources such as air. I don't see anything wrong with using the law to sort out costs imposed on other users of a shared resource.
A house is not communal property and its structure should not be dictated by the government. To argue otherwise is deny the existence of private property (a fait accompli at this point).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.