ACLU: What They Are Doing Now

[JudgeNot]

Here's a link to a well written piece concerning the ACLU posted on IntellectualConservative.com.  It's worth the few minutes it takes to read.

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article4392.html

[Soldier4Christ]

I couldn't stand to finish reading this article. It is right on the spot though, it is just that it angers me to see communism of this nature slowly taking over our nation when so many people have fought and died for the freedoms that this nation has enjoyed for so many years.

I made a statement in the early 1970's that if this nation were to fall to communism it would have to be from the inside and not due to being beat by another country. This is exactly what the ACLU is doing, turning this nation into communism.

[Reba]

I remember "krew chef"  (sorry about the spelling) pounding with his shoe saying "we will bury you"  He meant from the inside .....

The folks in DC are cowards....

[cris]

I just read that article and had a thought.  OK guys, so you smelled somethin' smokin' .

Does anyone know how big the ACLU is?  If they aren't a large group, then how are they doing so much damage?  I understand the pro bono's but that isn't the answer.  Why is it, well, I'll just wait until someone answers this post.





 

[Soldier4Christ]

This is some outdated information that was obtained just after 9-11. The ACLU has 330,000 dues-paying members. These dues help support the ACLU in its agenda. In 2003, the ACLU received $470,000 in such contributions. These were donations that were received through the federal donation program (Individual Income Tax Forms). There actual donations received are private but considerably more than what they used to receive through the federal donation program.

There is not only the National ACLU there individual state branches none of which are lacking in funds.

The ACLU is a rather large group.

[cris]

This is some outdated information that was obtained just after 9-11. The ACLU has 330,000 dues-paying members. These dues help support the ACLU in its agenda. In 2003, the ACLU received $470,000 in such contributions. These were donations that were received through the federal donation program (Individual Income Tax Forms). There actual donations received are private but considerably more than what they used to receive through the federal donation program.

There is not only the National ACLU there individual state branches none of which are lacking in funds.

The ACLU is a rather large group.

I had no idea they were so large.  My original thought was if they were a relatively small group, how could they be so powerful?  Wish they'd all gather together in one place...........like Mt. St. Helen's.  I know that wasn't a very Christian-like statement.


 

   

[Soldier4Christ]

This is some outdated information that was obtained just after 9-11. The ACLU has 330,000 dues-paying members. These dues help support the ACLU in its agenda. In 2003, the ACLU received $470,000 in such contributions. These were donations that were received through the federal donation program (Individual Income Tax Forms). There actual donations received are private but considerably more than what they used to receive through the federal donation program.

There is not only the National ACLU there individual state branches none of which are lacking in funds.

The ACLU is a rather large group.

I had no idea they were so large.  My original thought was if they were a relatively small group, how could they be so powerful?  Wish they'd all gather together in one place...........like Mt. St. Helen's.  I know that wasn't a very Christian-like statement.


 

   

Mexicos volcano of Fire would be a better place.   It is in the process of erupting many times in the last week. If the ACLU doesn't change their ways they will be facing much greater heat than that.

[Reba]

 

[JudgeNot]

This is a real stomach turner.  Get control of your gag reflex before reading.

ACLU and Planned Parenthood Ask Court to Block Idaho’s Third Attempt at Restricting Teenagers’ Access to Abortion
June 15, 2005
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: media@aclu.org

BOISE, ID -- The American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood Federation of America argued in court today that Idaho’s third attempt at enforcing a dangerous measure restricting teenagers’ access to abortion should be enjoined.

"The safety of Idaho’s most vulnerable teens should be our first concern," said Rebecca Poedy, President of Planned Parenthood of Idaho. "Putting politics before health care, the state persists in its efforts to enforce a law that would harm teenagers, especially those in need of emergency abortions."

The law in question prevents teens under 18 from having an abortion unless they receive the written consent of a parent or a court waiver of that requirement. Although slightly modified from two earlier versions already struck down by the courts, the law at issue in today’s case suffers from two flaws previously declared unconstitutional: It compromises the confidentiality of teens who need emergency abortions, and of teens seeking waiver of the parental consent requirement.

"Three times is not the charm when it comes to Idaho’s attempts at restricting teens’ access to abortion," said Louise Melling, Director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. "We are confident the court will once again block a law that puts Idaho teens at risk."

In March, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Idaho’s request to review a lower court’s ruling striking down an earlier version of the law because it endangered teenagers’ health. The legislature responded by enacting yet another law, one that incorporates provisions nearly identical to those previously declared unconstitutional. Planned Parenthood and the ACLU filed suit against the new measure in April.

"It is mind boggling that the state is indifferent to the fact that this law is unconstitutional and dangerous," said Alan Herzfeld, cooperating counsel for the ACLU of Idaho. "The state cannot force teens seeking an abortion to obtain written consent from a parent without providing a confidential alternative to protect teens who can’t involve a parent in their decision. This law does not provide that protection."

Today’s case is Planned Parenthood of Idaho v. Wasden, Case No. CV05-148-S-BLW. Lawyers on the case include Melling and Chakshu Patel of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, Helene Krasnoff and Roger Evans of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and Herzfeld for the ACLU of Idaho Foundation.

The ACLU and Planned Parenthood brief in the case is available online at: http://www.aclu.org/ReproductiveRights/ReproductiveRights.cfm?ID=18033&c=143.

[Soldier4Christ]

This law is not what is dangerous, the ACLU and Planned Parenthood is what is dangerous not only to the health of these teens but to their very souls.

[JudgeNot]

The latest anti-God news, straight from the 'other side', clearly hypocritical, promoting 'civil rights' with one hand and squashing human rights with the other:

ACLU Calls on Congress to Reject Funding of Religious Activities, Says Faith Based Initiative Goes Too Far and Threatens Civil Rights
   
June 21, 2005

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Media@dcaclu.org

WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union today urged lawmakers not to give the green light to the president’s plan to funnel taxpayer dollars to faith-based organizations to provide social services. Without the proper safeguards, the president’s "Faith-Based Initiative" will amount to little more than "government funded religion."

"The government can - and has - provided assistance to faith-based and secular organizations to run social service programs so long as they all abide by the same rules," said Terri Ann Schroeder, Senior Lobbyist with the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "The White House seeks to give religious organizations a special right to run publicly funded programs and to ignore the civil rights laws that apply to all other recipients of federal dollars. Religious organizations have the right to promote their religious views and run their operations as they see fit when using their own money, but not on the taxpayers’ dime."

The House Government Reform Subcommittee on Federalism and the Census met today to consider the relationship between government and faith-based organizations to provide social services. Unable to gain the support of Congress for its plan, the Bush Administration has advanced its government funded religion plan through executive orders and regulatory changes. Under the guidelines promoted by the Bush Administration, faith-based social service providers would be given the right to discriminate in their hiring for federally funded jobs, preach to service recipients, and generally play by a different set of rules than their secular counterparts. Under the Bush plan, the neediest among us could find themselves offered salvation and not treatment.

At today’s hearing, witnesses in support of the faith based-initiative offered truly startling policy suggestions regarding pre-emption of state and local civil rights laws. The vast majority of federal funding for social service programs is administered through state and local governments, many of which offer greater civil rights protections. Lawmakers heard suggestions that such locally enacted protections be cast aside. Also suggested was an exemption for faith-based providers from the standard licensing and certification requirements in substance abuse and other treatment programs.

The ACLU noted that if the president’s push for government funded religion succeeds, social workers, psychologists, counselors and others seeking work in social service programs could be denied jobs solely because of their faith, gender, marital status of sexual orientation.

"The greatest irony here is that the current civil rights protections against discrimination in many federal programs date back to federal job-training legislation adopted 23 years ago - passed by a Republican Senate and signed by a Republican president," Schroeder said. "Congress must not reverse our long-held belief that faith-based groups that receive federal funds must abide by non-discrimination laws."

[JudgeNot]

Squash that prayer!!!  It could be 'hurtful' to the enemies of God!

ACLU fights school board's prayers
Panel has been invoking God before meetings for 30 years
Posted: June 23, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
WorldNetDaily.com

A school board is battling the ACLU in court for the right to open its meetings with prayers that invoke "God," "Heavenly Father" and "Jesus."
The Tangipahoa Parish School Board in Louisiana is appealing a federal judge's ruling that such prayers violated the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution, which says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
The Thomas More Law Center, a public-interest law firm, has submitted a friend-of-the-court brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in support of the school district.
Richard Thompson, the Law Center's chief counsel, said the case is "just another example of the concerted effort to destroy the religious foundations of our nation."
"Acknowledging beliefs that are widely held among the American people is not a violation of the Constitution," he said.
The school board -- which has opened each of its meetings with a prayer, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance, for more than 30 years -- argues the invocations impose no restriction on any religious viewpoint, and any person who wants to lead the prayer may do so regardless of his religious beliefs.
In 2003, however, a parent of two high school students in the district, represented by the ACLU, filed a lawsuit claiming the invocations were unconstitutional.
The trial judge recognized it is constitutional for legislative or deliberative bodies to begin meetings with prayer, but she ruled the principle did not apply to the school board.
The Thomas More Law Center argues that the school board is a deliberative body under Louisiana law; its meetings are held separately from classroom and school-related activities; and students are not required to attend the meetings.
In its brief, the law firm pointed out that sessions of the U. S. House of Representatives begin with prayers making reference to "God," "Heavenly Father" and "Jesus." The prayers also offer thanksgiving and seek wisdom, guidance, forgiveness and protection.
The school board's prayers are not different in any material respect, the brief asserts.
Edward L. White III, an attorney with the Law Center who drafted the brief, argued the "prayers said to start Tangipahoa Parish School Board meetings are as constitutional as those said to start any other meeting of a legislative or deliberative body, including the House of Representatives."
"It is a deeply embedded part of the history and tradition of this country for deliberative bodies to open their sessions with prayer," he said.
Last week, a state Senate panel approved a resolution expressing support of the Legislature for prayer at school board meetings.
The resolution says prayer is protected and follows the country's founding principles.

[cris]

Squash that prayer!!!  It could be 'hurtful' to the enemies of God!

ACLU fights school board's prayers
Panel has been invoking God before meetings for 30 years
Posted: June 23, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
WorldNetDaily.com

A school board is battling the ACLU in court for the right to open its meetings with prayers that invoke "God," "Heavenly Father" and "Jesus."
The Tangipahoa Parish School Board in Louisiana is appealing a federal judge's ruling that such prayers violated the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution, which says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
The Thomas More Law Center, a public-interest law firm, has submitted a friend-of-the-court brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in support of the school district.
Richard Thompson, the Law Center's chief counsel, said the case is "just another example of the concerted effort to destroy the religious foundations of our nation."
"Acknowledging beliefs that are widely held among the American people is not a violation of the Constitution," he said.
The school board -- which has opened each of its meetings with a prayer, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance, for more than 30 years -- argues the invocations impose no restriction on any religious viewpoint, and any person who wants to lead the prayer may do so regardless of his religious beliefs.
In 2003, however, a parent of two high school students in the district, represented by the ACLU, filed a lawsuit claiming the invocations were unconstitutional.
The trial judge recognized it is constitutional for legislative or deliberative bodies to begin meetings with prayer, but she ruled the principle did not apply to the school board.
The Thomas More Law Center argues that the school board is a deliberative body under Louisiana law; its meetings are held separately from classroom and school-related activities; and students are not required to attend the meetings.
In its brief, the law firm pointed out that sessions of the U. S. House of Representatives begin with prayers making reference to "God," "Heavenly Father" and "Jesus." The prayers also offer thanksgiving and seek wisdom, guidance, forgiveness and protection.
The school board's prayers are not different in any material respect, the brief asserts.
Edward L. White III, an attorney with the Law Center who drafted the brief, argued the "prayers said to start Tangipahoa Parish School Board meetings are as constitutional as those said to start any other meeting of a legislative or deliberative body, including the House of Representatives."
"It is a deeply embedded part of the history and tradition of this country for deliberative bodies to open their sessions with prayer," he said.
Last week, a state Senate panel approved a resolution expressing support of the Legislature for prayer at school board meetings.
The resolution says prayer is protected and follows the country's founding principles.

"It is a deeply embedded part of the history and tradition of this country for deliberative bodies to open their sessions with prayer."

My first thought about the above quotation is how the catholics are bashed for their "traditions", but here, because of the prayer problem in schools, tradition is OK in this sense.  It just hit me about double standards. I know I'll get some disagreement on this.  It's OK, though.


 

[JudgeNot]

cris - "tradition" definity goes many ways.  It's tradition for some 'tribes' in Malasia to eat their dead family members.
 

Okay - I guess that may not be quite parallel to your point.  

(Ha-ha - I kill me!)

[JudgeNot]

ACLU Now Defends Polygamy, Further Eroding Traditional Marriage

By James L. Lambert
June 24, 2005

(AgapePress) - In comments at an Ivy League school, the president of the American Civil Liberties Union has indicated that among the "fundamental rights" of people is the right to polygamous relationships -- and that the ACLU has defended and will continue to defend that right.

In a little-reported speech offered at Yale University earlier this year, ACLU president Nadine Strossen stated that her organization has "defended the right of individuals to engage in polygamy." Yale Daily News says Strossen was responding to a "student's question about gay marriage, bigamy, and polygamy." She continued, saying that her legal organization "defend the freedom of choice for mature, consenting individuals," making the ACLU "the guardian of liberty ... defend[ing] the fundamental rights of all people."

The ACLU's newly revealed defense of polygamy may weaken the pro-homosexual argument for changing the traditional definition of marriage. Proponents of same-sex "marriage" have long insisted that their effort to include homosexual couples in that definition would only be that. However, conservative and traditional marriage advocates predict "other shoes will drop" if homosexual marriage is legalized -- perhaps including attempts to legalize polygamy and to changed current legal definitions of child-adult relationships.

Crawford Broadcasting radio talk-show host Paul McGuire concurs. He says in his opinion, the ACLU "has declared legal war on the traditional family."

"Now the ACLU is defending polygamy," he continues, in response to Strossen's comments. "You know, there are male and female lawyers who wake up in the morning and are actually proud of being ACLU lawyers. But I think the majority of Americans view ACLU lawyers as people who hate America and who want to destroy all Judeo-Christian values and beliefs."

McGuire summarizes by saying that Strossen's organization seems "to only defend things that tear down the fabric of society."

National Review correspondent Ramesh Ponnuru provides some additional insight. "It could be that the ACLU has defended a right for people to set up households in this way without necessarily fighting for governmental recognition of polygamous 'marriages,'" he says.

"Even if so," Ponnuru concludes, "it is hard to see how the ACLU, on its own principles, could stop short of demanding a change to the marriage laws to allow for polygamy."

Strossen has been president of the ACLU since 1991. She is also an acting professor of law at New York Law School and the author of the book, Defending Pornography: Free Speech, Sex & the Fight for Women's Rights (Scriber).