Friday, June 24. 2005
Evils of the ACLU Darr in Intell. Conservative: 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 acquiescence 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. Read entire: Click here: The ACLU is Going Down, and Taking a Few of Us With it |
| |
|
