This is entirely consistent with the implacably illiberal ethos of the American Stifle Liberties Union.
Gagdad Bob | Email | Homepage | 05.24.06 - 2:18 pm | #

So sadly true. The only views they want heard are their own. Free speech? Why certainly if said speech toes our liberal line. Otherwise, (swoosh), it's hatchet time.

About the only thing in their title that bears any semblemce of truth anymore is the part about a 'union'.

...and throttled his brain

Yes, yes.
PlasticBananas | Email | Homepage | 05.24.06 - 2:28 pm | #

The problem with most people or groups who get threatened by the ACLU is their lack of marketting savvy. If I was threatened by those pin-head laywers I'd issue a press release, tell them to 'bring it on' and then launch a 24/7 vigil outside their offices and homes by as many "minute men" as I could muster to draw attention to their Goliath tendencies vs little davids.

I'd write editorials about their lawyers, let them know we're watching them, reading their thesis' and terms papers. Connecting dots and financial statements, campaign contributions and who got who a job at which administration.

They might rule the court room thanks to sympathetic judges, but I'd wage a guerilla marketing campaign the likes of which would make them realize we own all the other forums.

The "union" works because lawyers either work for it full time, part time or pro bono. I'd turn up the heat individual by individual. Who they are, what grades they got in school, everything. Push my freedom of speech and assembly and religion to the max.
John | Email | Homepage | 05.24.06 - 3:07 pm | #

There is a Mastercard commercial in here, somewhere, that ends with 'Free speech at the ACLU: Pricelss.
sigmund, carl and alfred | Email | Homepage | 05.24.06 - 3:23 pm | #

When I saw this post's title, I thought you were talking about the Third Annual “Hatemonger’s Quarterly” Horrible College-Student Poetry Competition. "Winners" (or should that be "whiners"?) can be found here.
AuricTech | Email | Homepage | 05.24.06 - 3:30 pm | #

Always Complaining Lawyers Union?
Monique MacNaughton | Email | Homepage | 05.24.06 - 4:03 pm | #

Just finishing an AWESOME must-read on this issue-
"The ACLU vs. America" by Alan Sears and Craig Osten (Broadman and Holman Publishers,2005)

Alliance Defense Fund

http://www.telladf.org

http://www.acluvsamerica.com

*haha looks like luvs America huh?*

http://www.domawatch.org

Like I said this book is a must-read
DAve | Email | Homepage | 05.24.06 - 10:27 pm | #

The guiding principles of the ACLU may best be understood by this quote of its founder, Roger Baldwin:

“I am for socialism. I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.”

Mr. Baldwin uttered those words in 1936, about the time Stalin was busy converting tens of millions of his citizens into corpses.
GnuCarSmell | Email | Homepage | 05.24.06 - 11:23 pm | #

Speaking of Stalin, he said that “America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within.”

Now, let me see ... I wonder if there might be a domestic organization undermining our patriotism, morality and spiritual life ...

http://americanthinker.com/artic...494& search=aclu
GnuCarSmell | Email | Homepage | 05.24.06 - 11:47 pm | #

> Mr. Baldwin uttered those words in 1936, about the time Stalin was busy converting tens of millions of his citizens into corpses.

Hey, he was only socializing their bodies into state property by evicting the owners. Get with the program, pal!
Oh Blutige Hölle | Email | Homepage | 05.25.06 - 8:32 am | #

I always thought it was hard to not believe in something as American as the Bill of Rights, but apparently I was wrong.

The particular issue one member of the board took issue with is a complicated one. Is pretending to be a health clinic in order to lure pregnant women to hear an anti-abortion lecture free speech or fraud?

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religion...k843/ cover.html
Michael Czeiszperger | Email | Homepage | 05.25.06 - 1:52 pm | #

WTF are you talking about MC? Can't you even have the decency to agree that an organization that suppresses free speech in its board of directors and claims to be advocating free speech for the people it represents has a problem? Or are you just another kneejerk leftist who has to disagree with logic itself? Honestly.
LOL | Email | Homepage | 05.25.06 - 3:30 pm | #

It looks like there's currently a fight between the ACLU's board of directors and management, and certainly management is on the wrong side of this argument. One of the major problems with this blog and commentors is looking at the world in black and white. The idea that because the ACLU management made a bad decision on this issue that the entire organization is evil simply isn't logical.

While I haven't studied everything they do, as a member I follow a variety of issues of interest and approve of their actions in most cases. Every time I've read anything from the "ACLU is evil" groups they invariably are upset about not being able to make their particular brand of christianity the official religion or upset about having to let accused criminals go when evidence was obtained illegally, etc.

In short, the ACLU is a check against over-reaching government power.
Michael Czeiszperger | Email | Homepage | 05.25.06 - 8:31 pm | #

The ACLU has made so many bad decisions it is hard to know where to begin to refute you, MC. I'm not going to bother because you aren't capable of altering your opinion. Oh, and when it comes down to Freedom vs. Slavery, the issue will always be black and white for me.
Junior | Email | Homepage | 05.25.06 - 9:38 pm | #

Consider: repeated proof that dissension within the ranks in the Bush administration brings swift eviction from the hallowed conclave and even swifter attempts at character assasination, the ACLU's attempt to keep all members of the chorus on the same page seems pretty trivial. A mistake, to be sure, but pretty trivial. Consider the level of vitriol leveled here as a matter of course (character assasination again?) against 'lefties', with the level of vitriol the 'right' leveled daily against Pres. Clinton, sound pretty much the same to me- out of all proportion to imagined 'sins'.
katysmom | Email | Homepage | 05.26.06 - 12:31 am | #

> The idea that because the ACLU management made a bad decision on this issue that the entire organization is evil simply isn't logical.

No, you're right, if this was THE ONLY INSTANCE OF IT HAPPENING, your interpretation of it would, indeed, be accurate.

Unlike you, MOST of us DON'T live in this liberal cocoon, however, where nothing ever impinges on anything else and nothing over 15 minutes old ever existed, though.

We actually REMEMBER things and put them into a larger context.

This ACLU issue is, in fact, simply a PRIME EXAMPLE of EVERYTHING the ACLU stands for these days, and all the things they act upon on a regular, if not exclusive, basis. It's rare to find a situation the ACLU is on the CORRECT side of these days.

> repeated proof that dissension within the ranks in the Bush administration brings swift eviction

I'm rather sure from your comments that I'm wasting my time, but, for the exercise:
Feel free, KM, to elucidate on your projection fantasies, that we may disabuse you of them. Hint: Don't be ridiculous and mention McCarthy and Wilson. You'll REALLY look like a complete and utter fool when we're done. Try and stick to less obscure expressions of blindervision and head-in-sand disease.

Note: I'm not predisposed, I'm simply willing to bet -- upfront -- that I and others can so totally shred you on this -- can fisk the hell out of virtually everything you'll claim -- that it won't be pretty. I can tell this from your choices of loaded words and phrases and the subtext of your comments/claims -- As though the "viriol" leveled at Clinton EVER was a tiny fraction (prior, at least, to his recent financially-targeted treasons) of that spewed at Bush. If such victimvision wasn't pitiful, it would be laughable.

> A mistake, to be sure, but pretty trivial.

As a single instance, yes, it would be -- as a small part of a giant wave of misaction, no, it's not.

"Everything counts in large amounts."
Ohbloodyhell | Email | Homepage | 05.26.06 - 1:02 am | #

> While I haven't studied everything they do, as a member I follow a variety of issues of interest and approve of their actions in most cases.

OK, Michael. Put up or shut up. Go ahead. List off, oh, a half-dozen cases -- preverably with news links, of which you approve. Give us a source for debate over the issue, and not your nonspecific allegation.

Anyone else wants to produce a half-dozen ACLU stories -- with links, please -- of things the ACLU has done, feel free to do so.

In both cases, let's limit to not more than six and actions in, say, the last 10+ years -- cases based on events from 1995 onward?
Ohbloodyhell | Email | Homepage | 05.26.06 - 1:08 am | #

Here's a nice list of the ACLU's support for religious liberty that is my main issue, with some independent links for verification:

http://aclu.org/religion/ tencomm...es20050302.html
-----------

Supports a Baptist Church that was denied a zoning permit to build a house of worship:
http://news.findlaw.com/ prnewswi...pr20060957.html

Supports student's right to sing the song "Awesome God" at a school talent show:
http://www.christianitytoday.com.../005/ 22.64.html
Supports rights of Churches to baptize in public parks:
http://fredericksburg.com/News/F...6192004/ 1398327

And the classic right to privacy issues as well:
Files a friend of the court brief in Limbaugh's Defense:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/ 0,2...,108140,00.html
Michael Czeiszperger | Email | Homepage | 05.26.06 - 10:32 am | #