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.
WOW. Great boy scout picture, can I get a T-Shirt with that on it.
So the ACLU wants its opponents to abandon all hope? Isn't there a gate that says as much according to Dante?
bttt
Well... if in error, I would financially support a countersuit by Hannity for abuse of power, violation of civil right of speech and freedom of assembly, and the right of any American citizen to protect himself, his community and his country against a clear and present danger, against that dip**it, Arizona State Rep. Kyrsten Sinema.
ACLU = American Communists Lawyers Union
(as it was in the beginning, is now, and probably, ever shall be
--at least until its demise as an organization).
Not an option. The ACLU is apparently unaware of the power of a truly pissed off American populace.
The ACLU should be investigated as a subversive COMMUNIST front group. After all, they were started by the COMMUNIST PARTY.
Excellent, that image says it all. Too bad we can't get that put on billboards across America. I wish I had the money, I would put it up and watch the satanist-ACLU attack me. I pray for a painful death to all ACLU members. They are one with Satan.
Yeah, I'm a lawyer, and you got it right. You did not mention, though, that if the ACLU loses, it does not have to pay attorney's fees to the other side.
It's a racket. If you want to put the ACLU out of business, the first step toward doing that is to repeal that attorney's fees law. Making it mutual won't help because it's not the attorney that pays, it's the party. They'll just find a plaintiff who has no money to do the suing.
Is there any possibility that the RICO statutes apply?
Socialist.
Communist.
"Progressive"
Democrat.
All the same.
Sorry, but I fear that day will likely never come. The ACLU will only be defeated if there is a collapse of government. At that point, Freedom loving Warriors could hunt their members down and send them to God for sorting. Otherwise, we are stuck with these evildoers.
They very well might.
All the more reason to create a healthy fund for legal counterattacks!
(I'm not a lawyer.)
And since when is it against American law for an American to enter Mexico?
It's not. However, it is illegal to enter the United States without going through one of several official entry points (this is what they were trying to nail Hannity with). Of course, since Hannity never left the US, it doesn't apply here.
So... what grounds would the ACLU have to bring suit if Hannity did enter the US illegally? They are not the INS, they are not representing the US, they aren't law enforcement. Who makes them the prom queen? They have no standing, they only claim that they do. They need to be faced down, and have their bluff called, and a few judges or magistrates with the stones to throw their asses out of court.
It sure is. When only one side is responsible for the others attorney fees. - Its legalized extortion.
Actually it is worse than that - ACLU attorneys fees are not paid by the either party in a law suit they are paid by the court - aka taxpayer
The ACLU is too well funded to falter.
May the lawyers of the hated ACLU burn in hell.
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.