Thursday, August 11, 2005

The Disingenuous Claims of the ACLU

The ACLU home page. About Us:

The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty. We work daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Our job is to conserve America's original civic values - the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The American system of government is founded on two counterbalancing principles: that the majority of the people governs, through democratically elected representatives; and that the power even of a democratic majority must be limited, to ensure individual rights.
Majority power is limited by the Constitution's Bill of Rights, which consists of the original ten amendments ratified in 1791, plus the three post-Civil War amendments (the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth) and the Nineteenth Amendment (women's suffrage), adopted in 1920.
The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:
*Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.
*Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.
*Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.
*Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.
We work also to extend rights to segments of our population that have traditionally been denied their rights, including Native Americans and other people of color; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgendered people; women; mental-health patients; prisoners; people with disabilities; and the poor.
If the rights of society's most vulnerable members are denied, everybody's rights are imperiled.
The ACLU was founded by Roger Baldwin, Crystal Eastman, Albert DeSilver and others in 1920. We are nonprofit and nonpartisan and have grown from a roomful of civil liberties activists to an organization of more than 400,000 members and supporters. We handle nearly 6,000 court cases annually from our offices in almost every state.
The ACLU has maintained the position that civil liberties must be respected, even in times of national emergency. The ACLU is supported by annual dues and contributions from its members, plus grants from private foundations and individuals. We do not receive any government funding.

Sounds good. However, their policy on the Second Amendment seems in contradiction to the above statement. In their own words:
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control.
They go on to say that were we to allow unlimited & regulated gun & weapon ownership, it would create a state of anarchy. Also that it is their position that the Constitution does not contain barriers to reasonable gun regulation.

On the other hand, this group believes in the legalization of the sale & distribution of child pornography (while making its production illegal), defended NAMBLA, Nazis, & the KKK.

Do they really believe that gun owners, are a greater danger to the country than the members of NAMBLA, neo-Nazis or the KKK?

Of course one can entertain the possibility that the vast majority of NAMBLA members simply attend meetings for the free chips & Coke & read the pamphlets which instruct how to lure young children for the style of prose, & that the vast majority of neo-Nazi members are merely another group of WW II enthusiasts & that the vast majority of KKK members are merely interested in having dinner parties, as is the view of Robert Byrd. As it is not possible to rule out these possibilities, let us, for the sake of argument, accept them. If we were to extend this line of reasoning, would it not be possible to argue that the vast majority of those who wish to own not only guns, but bazookas & missiles, merely wish to do so out of appreciation for their technological or decorative value.

After all, gun owners who number close to 60 million have exhibited a great deal responsibility & restraint. Despite there being nearly 200 million firearms in the possession of individuals, in the year 2000, the number of gun related deaths was 28,663: of these, 16,586 were suicides. It is interesting to note that Japan, which has a virtual ban on all fire arm ownership as a much higher rate of suicide than the Untied States, therefore, to argue that the availability of guns has an impact on the suicide rate would be difficult. Britain has extremely strict gun laws, yet, in 1999, they were only second to Australia in the percentage of people who befall victim to crime & were far ahead of the US with its laxer gun laws.

As part of their defense of refusal to fight gun laws, the ACLU cites a Supreme Court decision & state that they consider reasonable limitations & regulations of gun control acceptable. However, they do not argue for reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech in their defense of perverts & racists. IMHO, you would be hard pressed to find a vast majority of people who do not consider, banning child pornography, placing restrictions on the rights of the KKK & neo-Nazis to intimidate people & the right of NAMBLA to publish books that offer instructions to lure & abuse children & escape, reasonable.

Why is it that the ACLU adopts a reasonable, mainstream position on gun control, while adopting a radical position on the protection of children & all our citizens to be free of intimidation? Why aren't children on their list of "he most vulnerable members of our society" list?

After all, while the First Amendment does state that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, it is illegal to reveal the name of a CIA employee, as is it illegal to reveal critical national security information. We as a society have decided that there must be reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech. This is in accordance to the, ' the Constitution is not a suicide pact' school of thought. Could this line of reasoning not be extended to protecting our nation's children from predators & all of our citizens from intimidation?

By no means am I suggesting that the ACLU is obligated to accept cases that they find objectionable. They are a private organization & thus are free to conduct themselves in the manner in which they please. However, I do contend that for them to call themselves "our nation's guardians of liberty", who work to defend & preserve the Constitution & the Bill of Rights is disingenuous. They are biased & defend only those aspects of the Constitution & bill of rights that they feel are worth defending: why not be honest & admit it?

The most frustrating thing about all this, NY Girl, is that the ACLU--the individuals that make up the organization--are nothing like the Founding Fathers of our Country. Those who signed the Declaration of Independence and wrote our Constitution would be absolutely sick by the ACLU.
Thanks for stopping by...
great posts...great content on your site....

I know the ACLU has done good in our society but they have gone astray and it seems like their more interested in protecting talibans,terrorists,and any other slime that slithers on Earth,than protecting
Right on the money with this one..
It's a lot more profitable to terrorize large, moneyed establishments like cities with law suits than it is to sue any of the people the ACLU "represent".
They take in tens of millions of dollars in legal fees from the political subdivisions they sue, and that makes them just another large parasitical body feeding off our tax dollars.

Great post.
We need the ACLU like we need La Raza. The ACLU has become an organization that is anti-American. Most of the causes the ACLU support are not in the interest of the majority of Americans.
I seond all of the comments so far. The ACLU is undeniably biased towards a one world "politcally correct" view for everyone. Whats happening is DEMOCRACY is being HIJACKED by the sub divisional political elements within BOTH parties. None of these off shoots have TRUE democratic values but more communist, socialist and facist views. We're seeing the division of America in our lifetimes.
Has the ACLU ever done anybody any good? Aside from nazis, commies, and other degenerates?

I suppose that the might have, but it's very hard to have any support for an organization that seems to be unquestionably anti-American.

Further, as NYgirl has written about before, the ACLU is hardly altruistic: they are subsidized by Uncle Sugar. So, when they sue a Kentucky county to make SURE that there is no display of the Ten Commandments around, or sue the city of Skokie, IL to let nazis march in a predominantly Jewish neighborhood, or sue to allow the worst kinds of porn to be widely available, remember, kiddies:

You're paying for it.
Hi & welcome Cyouincourt007 (can't we just do lunch?) & Intheloop.

I think it's safe to say that the majority of us feel that the ACLU has definitly gotten out of hand.

They defended NAMBLA. They defended neo-Nazis. They defended the KKK. They favor the sale & distribution of child porn, but not it's production.

How porn that is not produced will get sold is something I would like to ask them.

I can tolerate a lot of things, but they've crossed the line.
After reading a little on ACLU, and nambla. I have to say I more sickened by this than before I was without reading it.
I will give credit to the ACLU in hopes to preserve the rights of people. There should be a line in which they should draw a line.
As a father of a 6 year old boy, I'm sickened at the fact that the american dollars are paying for some perverts right to sleep with my son (or hopes to sleepwith).
If there is a organization that is against this. I will freely join and pay to have the aclu shut down.Supporting perverts, terrorism, and hate mongers is not what america was founded on.
Best regards from NY! video editing programs
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?