Posted on 06/10/2005 8:36:44 AM PDT by Kaslin
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.
Rec'd a call earlier this week from a person asking what my feelings were about the ACLU. I unloaded on the fellow. While I was ranting about how bad the ACLU was, I wondered if this person was doing a survey for the ACLU or was going to ask for money or both. So I changed tactics told the fellow to call me back later since I was going out. Have been fielding my calls through the message center since.
Hannity stepped over a fence that was a ways inside the US border. He did not touch Mexico. And since when is it against American law for an American to enter Mexico?
It sais right in the article
In the first paragraph of the article it mentions pro bono attorneys - there may not be much pro bono to it because as I understand - there is a law and I don't know the number that says if a law suit is filed in a civil rights matter the person being sued has to pay the legal fees of the person that sued them.
Company A fires someone because they won't bath before they come to work - ACLU sues in the 9th Circus Court on the behalf of "Stinky" and wins then Company A has to pay Stinkys legal fees plus damages or whatever 9th Circus Court awards Stinky because of hurt feelings
I guess it is only pro bono if Stinky looses and is instructed to bath from here on
Yeah I remember that. He was showing it on Hannity and Colmes. They are nuts
And I will enjoy the day this happens
I know, but what is Hedgecock's connection to the wording as it appears on the ballot? Did he write it?
Ping for a later read!
you are so great..says it all THANKS
First things first: The first post, in any ACLU thread posted on FR, should carry the following paragraph for context...
Roger Baldwin, the co-founder of the ACLU said: “I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately, for abolishing the state itself. … I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the properties class, and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal. I don’t regret being part of the communist tactic. I knew what I was doing. I was not an innocent liberal. I wanted what the communists wanted and I traveled the United Front road to get it.” In spite of Baldwin’s Communist leanings, President Jimmy Carter awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom on January 16, 1981.
Baldwin didn’t create the ACLU in a vacuum, he had plenty of help. A group of Communist Party officials, fellow travelers, anarchists and radicals joined Baldwin to found the ACLU in 1920.
Now then, a couple of questions and observations.
As I understand it, this foreign agent, " Arizona State Rep. Kyrsten Sinema" in concert with the Communist group consider an accidental border crossing "an offense that could not be tolerated", but simultaneous crossing in the opposite direction by hundreds, perhaps thousands of criminals (illegal entry is still a federal crime, close as I can tell) is freaking invisible"???
Seems to be a proper recall is in order for one, and charges of sedition for both. Yes, I believe a cultural war qualifies.
Where ae the groups with the motivation, moxie and clout to pursue this as a counterattack?
You need more funds? Just ask for them! This unrich American would be happy to contribute on a continuing basis!
Man, I don't know how I missed this news about the ACLU suing Hannity. When did this happen? Is there really a court date, etc?
According to Hannity he stepped through a hole in the fence into a 3 foot buffer zone that was still US territory. He never crossed into Mexico and returned.
Despite the lack of a "crime", the ACLU and Arizona State Rep. Kyrsten Sinema peed all over themselves with excitement and were demanding a public execution or something similar. Meanwhile thirty miles further along the border, illegals continued to stream in while they did nothing.
Try this.
ACLU is an arm of the Democrat Party.
What is the tort that Hannity committed against the ACLU?For a suit to be pursued there must be damage....what is the damage to the party bringing the suit? Will a court even entertain such a waist of time?
This is actually a disastrous strategy for the ACLU, and a golden opportunity to drive the wooden stake through the heart of the ACLU vampire: create martyrs.
How many tachers and administrators who "stand their ground" can they arrest? How many students can they be allowed to inconvenience and injure?
On another facet of the potential development of this stupid strategy, what if, say, one million normal Americans pledge $1 a month put into a fund to support arrested teachers, administrators and their families while they are in jail? For as long as it takes?
I'm guessing that would take care of at least 150 prisoners of conscience and their families.
Double that contributon and it's still a pittance for the average American.
How long would the ACLU be able to afford that?
I would further suggest that any accused and arrested insist of individual trials!
I further expect that a significant number of businesses and wealthy patrons would step forward to provide additional funds.
It's a war they want?
The biggest difference between the ACLU and the standard ambulance chaser that I can discern is that the ACLU is not looking for offenders with money, but one with Christian influence to lose. So I guess the ACLU is funded in some non ambulance chaser way.
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.