ACLU Defines Hypocrisy

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU:

In case you haven't heard, a group of dissenters from the ACLU are rebelling and calling for a change in the current leadership of the main organization. The summary of things this new group is fed up with is hypocrisy and the ACLU is full of it. Purging the ACLU of its hypocrisy is bound to be a goliath task.

Where do we even begin with the ACLU's hypocrisy? How about its odd stance on the Second Amendment? They have decided that the term "the people" that is contained in the Second Amendment does not apply to "the people" as it does in all of the other rights contained in the Bill of Rights. They defend even the most radical in free speech for individuals, but somehow have adopted the opposite position on the Second Amendment. Surely it couldn't be that the Second Amendment doesn't fall within the boundaries of their liberal agenda! Could it?

In August of 2005 the New York ACLU sued against random bag searches on the NY Subway. Ironically the NYCLU HQ has a sign warning visitors that all bags are subject to search.

The ACLU have fought tooth and nail against the Bush administration's NSA program, a program designed to track international phone calls being made to or from suspected terrorist organizations. They have hailed themselves defenders of the right to privacy and labelled the program an illegal "secret" program of "domestic spying". All the while the ACLU has its own "secret" program of domestic spying of its own members and their personal financial information. This program has nothing to do with national security and everything to do with the real bottom line of fundraising. Former ACLU board member Michael Myers was shocked at this discovery.

The American Civil Liberties Union is using sophisticated technology to collect a wide variety of information about its members and donors in a fund-raising effort that has ignited a bitter debate over its leaders’ commitment to privacy rights.

Some board members say the extensive data collection makes a mockery of the organization’s frequent criticism of banks, corporations and government agencies for their practice of accumulating data on people for marketing and other purposes.

The group’s new data collection practices were implemented without the board’s approval or knowledge and were in violation of the ACLU’s privacy policy at the time, according to Michael Meyers, vice president of the organization and a frequent internal critic. He said he had learned about the new research by accident Nov. 7 during a meeting of the committee that is organizing the group’s Biennial Conference in July.

He objected to the practices, and the next day, the privacy policy on the group’s Web site was changed. "They took out all the language that would show that they were violating their own policy," Meyers said. "In doing so, they sanctified their procedure while still keeping it secret."

After spending 23 years on the ACLU board, the "defenders of free speech" issued gag orders to him, not to speak about the issue. Now thats free speech for you.

When it comes to free speech the ACLU claim to be its most steadfast defender. Now, I am not an absolutist on unlimited free speech. However, most people would think that an organization arguing for hate cults to protest with "God Hates Fags" signs at military funerals, neo nazis to march through Jewish neighborhoods, and that child porn distribution is protected by the First Amendment are about as absolutist as it gets. Not so!

When it comes to pro-life protesters the ACLU could care less about their free speech rights. As a matter of fact they actively fight against pro-life protesters' free speech and have even tried RICO lawsuits on them. It is scary to see just how far the ACLU will go for its unrestricted abortion agenda. Free speech definitely takes a backseat to their pro-abortion agenda. They have even listed it as their number one priority pushing the defense of the First Amendment, the alleged heart and soul of the ACLU’s mission, down to third on the list, after civil rights.

But don't just take my word for it, listen to the words of a former Execuitve Director:

The right to express unpopular opinions, advocate despised ideas and display graphic images is something the ACLU has steadfastly defended for all of its nearly 80-year history.

But the ACLU, a group for which I proudly worked as executive director of the Florida and Utah affiliates for more than 10 years, has developed a blind spot when it comes to defending anti-abortion protesters. The organization that once defended the right of a neo-Nazi group to demonstrate in heavily Jewish Skokie, Ill., now cheers a Portland, Ore., jury that charged a group of anti-abortion activists with $107 million in damages for expressing their views. Gushed the ACLU's press release: "We view the jury's verdict as a clarion call to remove violence and the threat of violence from the political debate over abortion."

Were the anti-abortion activists on trial accused of violence? No. Did they threaten violence? Not as the ACLU or Supreme Court usually defines it, when in the context of a call for social change.

The activists posted a Web site dripping with animated blood and titled "The Nuremberg Files," after the German city where the Nazis were tried for their crimes. Comparing abortion to Nazi atrocities, the site collected dossiers on abortion doctors, whom they called "baby butchers." ...

This is ugly, scary stuff. But it is no worse than neo-Nazi calls for the annihilation of the Jewish people, or a college student posting his rape fantasies about a fellow coed on the Web, both of which the ACLU has defended in the past.

Defending NAMBLA to print material advocating for sex between grown men and boys is the definition of defending "robust freedom of speech" in the ACLU's book, but defending people's right to protest against killing the unborn somehow fails to make the list.

But the hypocrisy does not end there. When it comes to protecting religious expression the ACLU has proven itself to be number one in America's religious censors. They have consistently shown themselves to be hostile towards Christianity in particular. When the Tangipahoa Parish School Board in Louisiana opened its board meetings with a prayer like they had for 30 years the ACLU sued. After the ACLU won that case and the School Board ignored the court ruling, Louisiana ACLU chief Joe Cook called for them to be jailed and compared them to terrorists. Mr. Cook is currently leading an attack on plan for a Katrina memorial paid for with private funds to be errected on private land simply because it is in the shape of a cross and might offend some sensitive passerby. When valedictorian of Foothill High, Brittany McComb, decided to share her faith voluntarily at her graduation cermony the ACLU said it was the right call to pull the plug. Currently when the ACLU wins a case from attacking religious expression it is awarded attorneys fees, often in the millions, at the expense of the American taxpayer. The U.S. House of Representatives recognized this abuse and passed the Public Expression Of Religion Act to put a stop to it. However, the threats and abuse will continue however if we can't convince the Senate to pass this as well.

But the hypocrisy goes even further. The ACLU's disdain for free speech outside of its agenda extends beyond Christians and pro-lifers to its own dissenting members. Very recently the ACLU attempted to put forth a policy restricting the free speech of its own members.

Natt Hentoff, another former ACLU board member, was incredulous.

"For the national board to consider promulgating a gag order on its members — I can’t think of anything more contrary to the reason the A.C.L.U. exists."

After a huge controversy, media coverage, and public concern of the NY Attorney General’s office the ACLU dropped the proposal. Instead they switched to more effective measures of replacing or voting out the members that were not in line with their agenda.

When it comes to principles the ACLU has none other than lining their pocketbooks and furthering their own liberal agenda. As I said at the beggining of the article, cleansing the ACLU of hypocrisy will be a mammoth task. I don't think its possible. I'm more hopeful that their own greed and corruption will eat them from the inside. I think we are beggining to see the cracks and hopefully enough light will shine through them to wake people up to the truth.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already on-board.

You will also be able to find this article at Links and Categories under the heading of Stop the ACLU.

Support the Troops Weekend - After Action Report

WRITTEN BY TOM, THE REDHUNTER!

My apologies that it has taken me several days to get this post up, but life has been keeping me very busy.

The bottom line is that we had two successful Support the Troops weekend events. Following are photos and a complete report.

There were two main events: Friday evening September 22 outside of Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington DC, and Saturday afternoon, September 23, at the Sylvan Theater near the Washington Monument, also in Washington DC.

Support the Troops 2006 was sponsored by FreeRepublic.com, the DC Chapter of FreeRepublic.com, Military Families Voice of Victory, and the Protest Warriors. I'm not sure if I'm officially a member of FreeRepublic but I've got a Freeper screen name and have participated in most of their events over the past year so I suppose that's good enough.


Day 1 - Walter Reed Army Medical Center

This Friday marked our 75th straight Friday outside of Walter Reed. Our objectives are twofold; one, as a show of support for the troops, especially those on the bus which returns from a DC restaurant every Friday evening (more below). Second, to keep the radical leftist group Code Pink away from the entrance. Complete reports on all Walter Reed "freeps" can be found here. My own personal accounts of these and other rallies can be found here and here. I have been participating since August 2005.

We usually have 20-40 people show up for our Friday night freeps, but on this night I estimate we had well over 50. Our number were swelled partially due to the large number of George Washington University Republicans who joined us. They were quite an enthusiastic bunch and brought a lot of energy to our rally.

Here is our MOAB ("Mother Of All Banners") which was directly across from the main entrance to the hospital.

Here are two more of the MOAB with lots of supporters incuding many of the GW Republicans



Here are some pro-troops supporters at the main entrance to the hospital. I took this photo from the corner where the MOAB was displayed.

Down the street about half a block are the radical supporters of Code Pink. As I was taking this photo Pinko leader Gael Murphy drove up and parked right in front of me. She asked what I was doing and I told her what whe perfectly well knew, that I was taking photos of her people. She held out some radical literature which I took. I'm always interested in that stuff so I figured why not? It turned out to be pretty standard stuff and not very interesting.


If you're not familiar with Code Pink, I've got a lot posted about them over at The Redhunter, just go to the Categories section at right and see either "The Left" or "Rallies and Protests". However, two pieces that explain matters pretty well can be found here (scroll down to where it says "The Case Against Code Pink) and here.

Code Pink used to occupy the corners right outside the entrance to the hospital, but we got the permit when they forgot to renew it last January.

At some point during the evening some lady came by to argue with us. I think that she was from the Pinkos, but am not entirely sure. I'll find our more when the official after-action report comes out on FreeRepublic.com and will link to that. As you might imagine she was quickly surrounded and an "enthusiastic" discussion ensued.


Interestingly, the Pinkos show little interest in debating or arguing with us when we go down there. Several times over the past year wounded soldiers from the hospital have gone down to where the Pinkos are standing to tell them what they think of them (hint; it isn't good). For a group that holds "We Support the Troops But Oppose the War" signs, most of them ignore the troopers.

Two weeks ago Milblogger SMASH went down to the Pinkos and told them off royally. He's got audio and pictures on his website. Don't miss it.

The Troop Bus

Every Friday evening several local charities (organized or partially sponsored by the Italian Embassy) take a busload of wounded troops and their visiting families out to a local restaurant. They return to the main entrance sometime between 9 and 11pm. When they do, the bus slows and the driver turns on the inside lights. We go crazy waving our signs and banners and they wave at us.

In case you think this doesn't mean anything, two weeks ago an Army Captain and a Command Sergeant Major, all of the 101st Airborne Division drove up, parked, got out, and the following conversation ensued

The two men were clearly delighted at seeing this unambiguous show of support not just for the troops, but for their mission. "Wow! We're just back for ten days and we came to visit some of our men in the hospital," one of them related. "Seeing this is just fantastic -- thank you!" he exclaimed, to which we returned a volley of "No, thank you! We thank you!

"When we're in Iraq, it's so great to know you're here," he continued.

"How do you know we're here?" I asked.

"The Internet -- we knew there were people like you out here while we were in Iraq," he smiled, "and we appreciate it! How about some photos?" They lined up the group of young people and snapped several shots before jumping back into the vehicle with broad grins and waves, and more shouts of "Thank you for your service!" from FReepers.

In addition, I've talked to dozens of troops at the hospital in the past year I've been doing this and can tell you that they are all very happy that we are outside.

In addition, after all this most of us go inside the hospital complex to Malogne House. All of us bring things for their donation tables, things from food treats to coloring books for the kids (their families come and visit) to cigarettes and books and videos. We visit for about an hour or so but of course by then it's getting late

Day 2 - The Support the Troops Rally in Washington DC

The main event for Support the Troops Weekend took place from noon until 3 at Sylvan Theater, an outdoor mini-arena which is in one of the corners of the large field where the Washington Monument stands.

First off was an opening ceremony. We said the Pledge of Allegiance, sang the Star Spangled Banner, and a military chaplain said an invocation. Kristinn Taylor, co-founder and current president of the DC chapter of FreeRepublic.com, moderated the event. Kristinn organizes the Friday night Walter Reed Freeps as well as many other rallies and counter-protests. The flag was made by children at Ft Benning after 9/11


Over the next few hours we heard from several speakers.

* Larry Schweikart – co-author of Patriots History of the United States
* Mychal Massie - Project 21
* Richard August - father of Cpt Matthew J. August, KIA 1/27/04, Iraq
* Capt. Larry Bailey, USN Ret. – Vets for the Truth
* Ray and Becky Davis - Military Families Voice of Victory
* Diana Irey - Washington County Commissioner, Pennsylvania, and running for Congress against Jack Murtha
* Nikki Mendicino - POW/MIA activist
* Kevin Martin - Project 21; veteran, USN
* Eve Tidwell - God Bless Ft. Benning
* Frank Schaeffer – co-author of AWOL, author Faith of Our Sons-a Father's Wartime Diary
* Wes Vernon - Accuracy in Media
* Evan Sayet - Writer/Entertainer
* Leo Flood, father of son who served in Iraq and Afghanistan
* Richard Linn, father of LCpl. Karl R. Linn, KIA 1/26/05, Iraq
* Kristinn Taylor, D.C. Chapter of FreeRepublic.com

Here is Larry Bailey speaking


Another crowd scene with some of the flags we had.


No rally would be complete without a few anti-war heckers. We ignored them and they went away. I quoted Ann Coulter to ConcreteBob; "If you're not pissing them off you're not doing your job!" Given that ConcreteBob is the president of the DC chapter of the Protest Warriors, and the person who got the permit away from Code Pink for the entrance to Walter Reed, he was one who I knew would appreciate the quote.


Channel 4 News came by and did a few interviews. I searched their site but haven't been able to find anything about the rally on it. The Washington Times had a reporter there and they did an honest story on the event. Their estimation of 70-100 people was what I counted also. Conservatives just don't draw large crowds for these things. It's just not in our culture.


Diana Irey, the lady running against Jack Murtha, gave a good talk. From what I read the Democrats are putting lots of money into the race to make sure they don't suffer the embarrassment of a Murtha loss, so while I doubt that she'll win at least we're putting up a good candidate.


Closing Ceremonies


Finally - all true pro-troop patriots reading this who can swing by Washington DC for a weekend are welcome to join us Friday nights at Walter Reed! Don't be shy, we get new people every week. We even serve pizza, so what's not to like? But if you don't find yourself in this area, consider holding your own rallies or counter-protests. There are FreeRepublic and Protest Warrior chapters in most major cities, so you can also contact them. There's probably more going on than you realize. Show your support!

Bill To Stop ACLU Taxpayer Funding To Be Voted On Today

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU:

S 3696 (PERA), sponsored by Sen. Brownback (R-Kan), a companion bill to H.R. 2679 (PERA), sponsored by Rep. Hostetter (R-Ind.), would amend all relevant federal laws to eliminate the authority of judges to award taxpayer-paid attorney fees to the ACLU, or anyone else, in lawsuits under the Establishment of Religion Clause of the First Amendment against veterans memorials, the Boy Scouts, or the public display of the Ten Commandments of other symbols of America’s history with a religious aspect.

This legislation will stop your taxes from paying the ACLU to attack our Christian heritage and symbols. Act now before it is too late.

It will be voted on today in the House.

NRB has learned that PERA, the Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005 (H.R. 2679) introduced by Rep. John Hostettler (R-IN), is expected to be considered for a floor vote in the House, tomorrow, Tuesday, September 26th. This critical legislation, which has been supported by NRB, would protect our government agencies and their civil servants from having to pay huge attorneys fees awards to groups like the ACLU when they sue over references to God and religion in public settings.

WHAT YOU CAN DO: Urge your listeners and viewers to contact their representatives in Congress and urge him/her to “vote for H.R. 2679, Public Expression in Religion Act of 2005, also known as PERA.”

CONSIDER THIS: This legislation would avoid the outrageous funding (through taxpayer dollars) of the ACLU, atheist organizations, and others who want to strip acknowledgements of God from the public square, and for that reason this bill is a major plus. But more than that, it would also force more of these cases to face the bright sunlight of a court of law, rather than the present situation of government officials being intimidated into capitulating through private settlements with these radical secularist law groups for fear of facing mammoth attorneys fee awards if they lose at trial.

WHY THE TIMING IS CRITICAL: PERA will be brought to the House Floor on the very challenging “suspension calendar,” which means that debate is limited, it is possible that amendments may be restricted, and the bill must pass with a 2/3-majority. Therefore it is critical that your audience contact Capitol Hill today!

I have already recieved a letter from my Representative and have been assured of his vote. I contacted him on the day the bill was approved by the House Committee on the Judiciary, so I got an old form letter. Nevertheless it was assuring.

Find your Representative here.