Posted on 06/11/2005 8:58:10 AM PDT by FeeinTennessee
The ACLU Is Going Down... The Fifth Column/Justin Darr
June 10, 2005 -
For years the American Civil Liberties Union has pushed its agenda as to what the Constitution “really says,” and what freedom “really means” through judicial extortion. In 1978, the Supreme Court exempted the ACLU from the “ambulance chasing” prohibitions that apply to nearly every other lawyer in the country. Over the years this has enabled the ACLU’s legions of pro bono attorneys to specifically target various organizations they feel are vulnerable to their lawsuits, dredge the ranks of the “offended” until they can find someone who will agree to let the ACLU stick their name at the top of a case, and then attempt to force a group’s acquiesce to their demands by threatening a costly legal case they usually cannot afford. Many who have dared to stand up against the ACLU might have won the battle in the court room, but lost the war as their organizations were driven into bankruptcy under crushing legal bills.
However, in the last few years the tide has started to turn. Alternate civil liberties groups, such as The American Center for Law and Justice, conservative radio commentators, and even some in the media, have drawn attention to the ACLU’s pattern of abuses, fanatic beliefs and outright hypocrisy. For the first time the ACLU is faced with legitimate public outcry over their tactics and slowly those who once would quietly give up their freedoms have been instilled with the will (and pro bono legal support) to fight. In addition, despite the efforts of obstructionist liberals in Congress, the court system is being given a much needed infusion of new judges who recognize that their interpretation of the Constitution should in some fashion be similar to those who wrote it. The ACLU understands its days of forcing Christianity, traditional values, and freedoms out of American public life are numbered.
Out of a sense of desperation and frustration toward this new threat, the ACLU has recently begun to change the target of their court cases to include the leaders of public groups and the private individuals who are leading the charge against them.
The best known case involves popular talk show host Sean Hannity. While interviewing volunteers of the Minuteman Project last April in Arizona, Hannity inadvertently crossed the US/Mexico border for a few minutes then immediately returned. It was a simple mistake and easily understood in light of the pathetic security of our borders. However the ACLU, which led the good fight by trying to obstruct the Minutemen and goad them into conflicts while enabling the rampant invasion of illegals into our nation, decided this was an offense that could not be tolerated. Apparently upset at Hannity’s drawing interest to the good work of the Minutemen, Arizona State Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, under the auspices of the ACLU, demanded Hannity’s arrest.
It is quite obvious that Sinema and the ACLU were not motivated out of a sense of respect for immigration law or fairness, but out of personal hatred toward Sean Hannity. The ACLU does not like what Hannity has to say, so what better way to silence him than by having him embarrassed and thrown in jail. But this is a larger issue than just the ACLU trying to embarrass Hannity. It is indicative of a terrifying new trend from the ACLU where they are attempting to hold individual citizens legally liable for doing nothing more than thinking they are wrong. With large organizations starting to resist them, the ACLU must now found a new defenseless target unable to afford to fight them: private citizens.
There are several other cases in recent weeks which further illustrate this trend. In Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana, the ACLU has called for the arrest of school teachers and administrators because the ACLU does not feel they adequately exorcised all Judeo-Christian influences from their classrooms and cafeterias.
In San Diego the ACLU is suing five local personalities, including Rush Limbaugh sub Roger Hedgecock, because they do not like the wording they have chosen to represent the “Arguments For” section of a local ballot initiative to save the Mt. Soledad Cross. Who cares about freedom of speech and the right to voice your political opinions, the ACLU does not agree with it so it must be Constitutional to censor it. What is next? Arresting talk show hosts?
In the Keystone School District in Clarion County, Pennsylvania, even after the school board caved into the demands of the Pittsburgh ACLU, the ACLU is still suing the district because they felt that some in the community still “hoped” that there would be a prayer offered at the high school graduation. Suing a school district because some people in the community, who have no connection to the actual school district, “hope” something happens? Just what does that mean? Last time I checked “hoping” was still Constitutional. This case is nothing short of the ACLU trying to punish rank and file tax payers for not falling into line with its edicts. Just what will it take for the ACLU to feel adequately comfortable with the average citizen of Clarion County’s lack of hope at ever opposing the dictates of the ACLU? Will it be the ACLU individually suing every conservative American until we finally agree to live out our lives as Godless, Socialist drones, or would it just be Brown Shirts and Thought Police?
The ACLU is out of control. They can no longer even pretending to support freedom, the Constitution and Bill of Rights. What once may have been an organization dedicated to high ideals has now degenerated into a literal threat to our liberty. They are going beyond just trying to prosecute every Boy Scout troop and are now moving on to either sue people just like you and me, or actually have us arrested and subjected to criminal prosecution. How ironic it is that a group who thinks terrorists should not be in prison feels that those who disagree with them should. Sounds a little like the ACLU is no longer endorsing civil liberties but political prisoners.
You makes your bed you sleeps in it.
This article loses credibility when it says Hannity "inadvertently" crossed the border. Hannity told listeners he knew exactly what he was doing when he stepped through the border fence, and that the border officials had told him there was a three foot buffer zone beyond the fence.
That's funny; I put your title in the title search window, and instantly I got:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1420356/posts
I agree that the ACLU is disgraceful, but I disagree that they are on the ropes. They have had many victories in court. The most recent to have film and pictures from Abu Ghraib released.
I haven't heard if the government plans to appeal. Also, this will be another orgy of media military and Bush bashing.
Bush has been so passive and weak lately, I'm not optimistic that they have a smart plan for dealing with this.
I know the title makes it seem like the ACLU is faltering, but check out the article at the link.
You are right, they are as aggressive as ever. The Bush administration DOES need to address the issue.
It's all about the judges.
The founder of the ACLU said "The American people will never knowingly adopted socialism. But under the name of liberalism they wil adopt every precept of socialism." His stated goal was always to eradicate Christianity from the US.
Do a Google search on the founder of the ACLU. It will curl your hair.
Well, that's something. I can't always be sure someone hasn't already put this up.
The founder of the ACLU said "The American people will never knowingly adopted socialism. But under the name of liberalism they wil adopt every precept of socialism." His stated goal was always to eradicate Christianity from the US.
Do a Google search on the founder of the ACLU. It will curl your hair.
Oh yes...I know about them.
ACLU lawyers are not pro-bono as we understand the term. When they win a case, they are awarded "reasonable and customary" fees...this is the threat they hold over people. They sue you and then make you pay their salary.
But when they lose, they don't have to pay for the defendant's fees. That's something we could change that would help...
They are also part of Soros' army.
Bush really knots 'yer shorts?
Yes, you can IF the earlier poster followed the rules and used the exact title of its original site, and IF you put THAT in the search window for Title/Date...
Did you even notice the search window near the top of http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/browse ?
A while back in Indiana there came up a questionable issue and a city government asked the Indiana ACLU if there would be a problem if the city took a certain action. The ACLU publicly said they had no problems with what the city proposing and the city then enacted the new law.
The ACLU then sued and that told me all I needed to know about the ACLU.
Ever look at their structure? Every Freeper and Conservative in the nation could join and outnumber the libs ten to one yet it is nearly impossible to change the leadership from the grass roots, AARP is pretty much the same way as well.
Maybe I'm out of line here... but, why don't we take these people on below the belt. Destroy their credibility by exposing their personal lives. Or has this been tried? Or does anyone care?
Fight fire with fire, I have often wondered about that myself.
From others, I've always felt they were correct ACLU stood for:
Against Christianity Liberty Unity
or
American Criminal Liars Union
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.