Thread: The ACLU is Going Down, and Taking a Few of Us With it

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/c- ... 061005.htm

The ACLU is Going Down, and Taking a Few of Us With it

June 10, 2005


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Justin Darr

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

The ACLU understands its days of forcing Christianity, traditional values, and freedoms out of American public life are numbered.

Too bad that have been so demonically successful. Satan himself could not have done a better job.

[/quote]The ACLU is out of control.

That is the understatement of the century.

How ironic it is that a group who thinks terrorists should not be in prison feels that those who disagree with them should.

This is typical of the extreme left, Marxist Leninist line, they say up is down and down is up, black is white, etc. They are pure evil and have absolutely no redeeming qualities. They are the pornographers of jurisprudence.

What about the ACLU volunteers that were caught on FILM smoking pot!

I did not see the MSM reporting THAT!

I definitely agree with all these criticisms of the ACLU.

While I'm technically registered as a democrat, but asked for my voter's record to be changed to "unaffiliated" party before the last major elections (but the change wasn't made in my new voter registration card - oh, well!!!), I consider myself middle-of-the-roader on many issues, yet for a long time until more recently, I leaned a little more slightly to the left.

Several years ago, I had first hand experience at being disgusted with a local chapter of the ACLU. I was across the aisle from their booth at the NC State Fair in Raleigh, ironically working as a volunteer for another non-profit group that would be considered lefty by some.

During a break I wandered out of curiosity over to the ACLU booth because one of the volunteers was very vocally and loudly asking many to fill out a questionnaire. Well, I filled out this questionnaire (and believe me, I believe myself to be be now as then middle-of-the road on many issues, but there are a few I cross over the line, sometimes slightly and sometimes not, either left or right to some degree). Well, after filling out that ACLU questionnaire, I heard their vocal radical volunteer exclaiming very loudly to anyone within earshot - and even probably those out of range - to his fellow volunteers at their booth, "Look at this questionnaire she just filled out. Can you believe she doesn't believe in this, but she supports that. . . blah, blah, blah, blah, etc.? Manners prevented me (but I wish now I hadn't been so polite) from saying very loudly to anyone within earshot, "Well, EXCUUUUSSSSSEEEE ME!"

I guess the values the ACLU stands for such as freedom of speech, religion, etc. and the pursuits of liberty, blah, blah, blah, only matter if you share their viewpoints. No one else need apply.

And might I add that not on of those ACLU volunteers came over to the booth I was working at while I was there nor showed any interest on our cause.

Oh I would have said something a lot worse than "excuse me."

I'm politically moderate, as I think most Americans are, but I'm getting pretty fed up with these leftist facists.

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?

Here's a more detailed article on the above segment for anyone interested.

http://www.760kfmb.com/personalities/ri ... awsuit.php

RICK ROBERTS SUED BY ACLU OVER MT. SOLEDAD CROSS

The ACLU lawsuit naming Rick and others as defendants is outlined in the following story:

Atheist Will Legally Challenge Wording Of Mt. Soledad Cross Ballot Initiative
by James L. Lambert, contributing writer

The Lawyer for atheist Philip Paulson, James McElroy, has told five San Diego area personalities that he will file a legal challenge next week to the proposed wording of a July 26th City of San Diego ballot initiative. The initiative will determine the fate of the Cross located on City land atop Mt. Soledad in La Jolla, CA.

The area personalities includes KFMB radio talk show host Rick Roberts, KOGO radio talk show host Roger Hedgecock, San Diego Padres baseball club announcer Jerry Coleman, Congressman Randy ‘Duke’ Cunningham, and SoledadNational.com Director Phil Thalheimer. All five men recently signed off on the wording for the July 26th citywide initiative.

McElroy claims that a number of their statements on the ballot are “false and misleading.� Some statements at issue include, “as in the case with Mount Soledad, wherever veterans are honored with the symbols of the fallen, an intolerant few will launch frivolous lawsuits that waste our tax dollars …� Another statement the atheist lawyer is challenging says, “in 2004, the President of the United States signed legislation designating the Mount Soledad site as a ‘National War Memorial’, necessitating the land transfer.� Other wording that will be legally challenged includes the sentence, “Vote Yes to transfer the land to the federal government and to permanently preserve Mount Soledad- as it is where it is.�

On Friday, Roberts indicated by phone that he and the others “will defend the wording in court.� While there has been “a legal challenge against all 5 of us, I think we will prevail in court.� Roberts stressed that this issue is important for those who want to preserve the heritage of San Diego which includes the La Jolla Cross. Donations for that cause are being taken by both radio announcers and www.SoledadNational.com.

Roberts also appears as a regular stand in for Michael Savage’s nationally syndicated radio show. While Hedgecock substitutes for Rush Limbaugh occasionally. Coleman was recently elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame as a radio announcer. Induction ceremonies are to take place this summer.