ACLU
Once again, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) proves that it values a liberal agenda above and beyond its commitment to civil rights or, for that matter, sanity. On July 19th, the Rocky Mountain News quoted Cathy Hazouri, of the Colorado ACLU, defending Ward Churchill’s job on first amendment grounds. Thankfully, the News reiterated the actual reason for firing Churchill: his fraudulent scholarship, not his abominable personal views.
Then, on July 20th, the News quoted Hazouri again, who this time staked out positions against school police officers in general and the employment of Tasers in particular. Never mind Tasers—is the ACLU so out of touch with reality that it sees police officers in public schools as overkill? Who will ensure students’ rights to a safe learning environment or, for that matter, their lives in case of an attack?
Thank you for championing the rights of the Ward Churchills in our society and for undermining school safety, ACLU. When you have some time, how about protecting the rest of us?
This letter has not been edited.
Only fools support the ACLU.
Posted by Ben Franklin on July 24, 2007 05:01 PMAMEN!!!!
Posted by Rose Tyner on July 24, 2007 09:16 PMThe ACLU is an organization that aids people, who aren't black disabled Vietnam veterans. I asked the Denver ACLU to help me regarding my "free speech" with the Denver Federal Court and 10th US Circuit Court (Denver). They are helping Churchill with his CU free-speech issues, which is good. However, Alison May told me in no uncertain terms, the ACLU had no interest in my situation. Dang, I flunked the ACLU "hue-test".
My free speech rights were violated by Denver Federal Chief Judge Nottingham (Vietnam draft-dodger) and 10th US Circuit Court chief judge Deanell Reece Tacha. I wrote a letter to Snotty Notty, stating I wanted to testify on the behalf of Front Range disabled Vietnam veterans during Nacchio's criminal trial. He robbed the brothers blind of their "blood-loot" (jobs and contracts). Snotty Notty just ignored my lawful request. Battle-axe Tacha, wrote me a letter giving me a tongue lashing for having the audacity to seek justice.
Churchill is too smooth, to be in school. It is a stroke of genius that his attroney David Lane is filing their lawsuit in Denver District Court. The entire Denver federal court system is anti-Vietnam vet, across all racial lines. I don't recall seeing Snotty Notty or Buff-a-rilla Tacha during any of my 3 deployments to Vietnam.
Posted by 40acresandmymuleandvetbennies on July 25, 2007 06:51 AM40acres is Back! yay Spouting off about every topic from the whacko rascist black perspective. Yep, everything, from anywhere, every topic in the known universe is geared to keep the black vets down.
The firing of War Churchill wasn't for the fact that he was a plagiarizing tool and a complete fraud... NO, it was because everyone is a rascist concerning Black vets! I see. So, when you say you were denied your free speach, my guess is you tried to disrupt something you had no right to disrupt. Am I right?
Maybe the ACLU didn't take your case because you don't have one? Maybe your rascist stream of unconsciousness sounded like the babble it is and they decided that you were a complete nutters and they wanted to stay far away from that.
Posted by Dravur on July 25, 2007 07:30 AM40acres, your service for this country should be honored. We should honor our commitment to Vets of all backgrounds. PTSD of Vets is ignored as well as health care benefits (earned!) Your anger against politians is understandable and wide spread. While I disagree with some of your views, I will not mock you. You have paid a price for freedom, many have not. The ACLU is an idealogical organization which service their own end. Thank you for your service and your bringing some attention to the plight of our Vets.
Posted by Tom on July 25, 2007 08:05 AMACLU= American Criminal Liberties Union or....
ACLU= American Communist Lawyers Union
Roger Baldwin ACLU's Founder..Quote:
"I am for socialism, disarmament, and, utimately, for abolishing the state itself....I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and the sole control of those who produce wealth.
COMMUNISM IS THE GOAL"
On February 28, 2007 an ACLU executive was busted for child porn!
Charles Rust-Tierney, who served as president of the Virginia ACLU chapter for SEVERAL years, was the lawyer who argued AGAINST Internet filters in libraries in the early 2000s when the ACLU was opposing the Children's Internet Protection Act, which was later approved by Congress.
That is just a tiny tip of the iceberg when it comes to the ACLU. This gigantic BIG LIE Union should be investigated, exposed and then abolished!!
Posted by A on July 25, 2007 09:26 AMThe easiest wat to get rid of the ACLU would be to make the lawyers work for free. Get rid of the taxpayers subsidy to them and it would vansih quicker than a snowball in July.
Posted by Elwood on July 25, 2007 09:50 AMRight on Elwood... you hit the nail on the head!! If you cut off the blood supply to some diseases they simply die.
Posted by A on July 25, 2007 11:00 AMElwood, and A,
Perhaps you will document how the ACLU has a "taxpayers subsidy".
That's a flight of fancy worthy of a Harry Potter quiditch game.
And of course, we all know that "Civil Liberties" means only that which YOU think(?) them to be.
Which is exactly why we have an American Civil Liberties Union in the first place; to make certain that your prejudices don't replace our Constitutional guarantees, as stated in the Bill of Rights. Try reading IT sometime - or having it read to you.
Ah! But that's right! Bush and Company have called the Constitution, "just another damn piece of paper"; and that makes YOUR devoted adherance to Bushism - and whatever other stupidity you follow blindly - the new rule.
Again, one of the best reasons for an ACLU in the first place!
Posted by Old Grouch on July 25, 2007 11:47 AMOG You have got to be kidding!!
How bout close to a half a million dollars of TAXPAYERS money the ACLU received after successfully suing to have the 10 Commandments removed from Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore's courthouse?
Once again..that is just a teeny, tiny tip of the iceberg concerning the sue-happy, corrupt, intimidating, ACLU.
I don't have all day to post their methods of using litigation, recruiting, and legal "extortion" to keep their coffers full.
They are most definately anti-American and let's face it, sleazy to boot!!!
Posted by A on July 25, 2007 12:51 PMOG - Are you refering to the ACLU that fights for the rights of illegals?
Or maybe you're refering to the ACLU that fights so stringently for protection of the 2nd Amendment? Naw, can't be that. The ACLU won't fight for gun rights.
Thank God they at least fought for porn in the libraries as we all know how important that is.
Posted by KW on July 25, 2007 01:02 PMKW LOL!
Posted by A on July 25, 2007 01:09 PMYou kill the messenger (ACLU); you need to kill the final arbiter who sides or goes against the messenger according to your common sense (bias and prejudice). Forty Acres is not back; he has never left: Just as Brian Stuckey has never left.
Deicide Corner: Qur'an some quotes......
Qur'an 9:88 "The Messenger and those who believe with him, strive hard and fight with their wealth and lives in Allah's Cause."
Qur'an 9:5 "Fight and kill the disbelievers whenever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."
Qur'an 9:112 "The believers fight in Allah's Cause, they slay and are slain, kill and are killed."
Qur'an 9:29 "Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission."
Ishaq:325 "Muslims, fight in Allah's Cause. Stand firm and you will prosper. Help the Prophet, obey him, give him your allegiance, and your religion will be victorious."
Qur'an 8:39"Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah."
Qur'an 8:39 "So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief-non-Muslims) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone."
Ishaq:324"He said, "fight them so that there is no more rebellion, and religion, all of it, is for Allah only. Allah must have no rivals." Posted by A on April 4, 2007 08:40 AM
If I peddled snake oil, I'd sell the guys on Allah: He has created virgins without menses, stools, or urine for his male slaves (ask.com): Indeed, women are slaves to slaves. Men are slaves to Allah; women are slaves to men. Where did this mentality come from? The “Buy Bull” hijacked by Allah (Mohammad's fan club) r22037yahoo
This is a message for those of you who know little or nothing of the ACLU. I suggest you go to their website and learn something about them (http://aclu.org/). You won't agree with everything they stand for or the actions they've taken in every case, but thank God they are there.
The ACLU may not be perfect, but they are the ones out there fighting the good fight, while too many of us sit back and do nothing. Without them, who are your going to depend on--some of the keyboard tapdancing couch potatoes we see here or the ones out there performing a check and balance of our government. Dear God they (allegedly) got 1/2 a mil. for a case? How much do some of these lobbying firms get at your expense?
Go out there and look at their site. See what they've been involved in. You still want to voice your concern, so be it.
Ever notice that those who claim to know the true path to freedom from tyranny seem to be those who support the government the most? They remind of the brown nosers that reside in most companies. They view the boss as a threat but do everything they can to suck up to him (or her).
If the ACLU wins a lawsuit and gets money, is that taxpayer funding.?
Not unless you want to see it that way.
Posted by Sharon B. on July 25, 2007 01:49 PMA,
The plaintiffs won a case in court; and they received damages accordingly. They were represented by ACLU lawyers; and they paid those lawyers a percentage of the damages as fee for their services.
Had the plaintiffs lost, they would have been responsible for paying their lawyers' fees, and costs, themselves, as well as being open to assessment for the opposition lawyers fees and court costs as well..
This is the customary way by which monies for services in the course of litigation is handled in the United States legal system. It is not a "taxpayer subsidy"..
The rest of your diatribe is irrelevant, as well as pointless; and you are merely ranting about something you neither know anything about nor understand.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 25, 2007 02:07 PMLarkspur - Those 3 (tongue in cheek) examples of the ACLU gone awry are from the ACLU website.
The question is whether you agree with their philosophy or not.
Their stance on the 2nd Amendment alone tells me it's not the Constitution they're intrested in defending. At least not in it's current form.
Posted by KW on July 25, 2007 02:54 PMWhere would this country be if not for the ACLU? We would still be having those evil boy scouts holding a jamboree in a public park. And how could we possibly live without Nambla's website promoting the rape of children. Just the sheer idea of having a cross honoring the gallant men and women, who dying serving this country, being placed in a public area, how disgusting. We couldn't live knowing there might be a Christmas tree or nativity scene on any public property, heaven forbid. Oh damn now I did it I mentioned "heaven"
Here comes the ACLU!!!!
The ACLU is a organization that at one time in history was actually doing something constructive. However now they have been hijacked by a group of crazies.
For two hundred or so years, the Ten Commandments, the foundation for many of our current laws, have hung in our court rooms, but now they are illegal. When did that become illegal? When did that start to violate the 1st amendment? Last year, 20 years ago, 100 years, when did that happen?
Posted by jgd777 on July 25, 2007 02:57 PM"The ACLU is a organization that at one time in history was actually doing something constructive. However now they have been hijacked by a group of crazies."
Sounds kinda like what happened to MADD.
Posted by KW on July 25, 2007 04:24 PMOG I never said a word about a tax-payer subsidy. I wrote that close to a half million dollars of taxpayer money was received by the ACLU in the Alabama courthouse case.
Obviously, you are in dire need of new spectacles!
Posted by A on July 25, 2007 04:32 PMHey KW...
In response to your 3 cases, I assume you mean Churchill and Tasers/Officers in the schools.
With regards to Churchill, I read the July 11 07 letter to the Regents (hope that's what you mean) and to be honest, there was nothing inappropriate at all. They were merely pointing out to the Regents about events leading up to the termination and the recommendations of the investigators. The recommended that the Regents not terminate. Nothing wrong with that. It was merely an opinion from another point of view. The Regents job is to consider the points of view and make a decision. They did that. And to be honest, I think it was correct given the concerns. They would tolerate less from a student's work, so it should be the same for a teacher. The ACLU was not out of line at all.
As for the Tasers/Officers, let's start with Tasers. There is a view that these are nonlethal, and they can be with proper use, which comes from adequate training. As I see it the concern is ADEQUATE training. Can you imagine the lawsuit from someone who's child was killed due to someone not being adequately trained in the use of weapon, gun or taser? Just common sense, but which also can be easily impacted by lack of resources to provide that training.
As for the trends of officers in schools, I'm not sure of the concern. They had cops in my school back in the 60s. Man when I was a kid, many of us had guns in our cars. But then we're talking Michigan and hunting season. No one thought twice about that.
I'm thinking your third point is the gun issue. You're right. As an organization, the ACLU has a view different than you regarding gun control. Guess what? I disagree with them (and I'm a big ACLU supporter, and gun owner). I've been a gun rights supporter since before some of your mothers found that it wasn't a gas but you. Maybe they don't support gun rights, but then they are not actively pursuing their elimination either. A lot of liberals support gun rights and some conservatives don't. Wanna see a real gun rights champion who is also a Democrat? Look up John Dingell of Michigan.
If you support certain organizations 100%, that is scary. You will disagree with some of their views, but not with them as an organization. Nothing wrong with that and it is very healthy.
Ward Churchill should have been sackedfor conduct unbecoming civlized human beings!!
Posted by tj on July 25, 2007 06:25 PMlarkspur - My 3 points were posted at 2:54.
As for gun rights, the ACLU's stance has been that since the supremes decided it wasn't an individual right, that was okie dokie with them. In other words, they don't like the 2nd Amendment and were fine with it's elimination. That way they don't have to go after it's elimination.
Now we have courts recognizing that it is an individual right. Just watch and see, the ACLU will be on the anti gun side once again championing additional gun control legistlation.
Any group that claims to be fighting for civil rights, yet ignores the most basic violations, obviously has another agenda than they make known.
Keep your eyes open for sign such as these. If you support only a portion of a group, you'd be wise to carefully scrutinize the portion you disagree on and discern the groups motives.
Posted by KW on July 26, 2007 09:28 AMA,
Indeed you did. And earlier, the poster, "Elwood" used the words "taxpayer subsidy". My first reply included you both. My second left off "Elwood". Sorry.
Yes, it was a form of "taxpayers' money"; insofar as it was an entity of Civil Government that was sued and lost; and that Civil Government entity does derive its revenue from taxes. That, however, makes no case of fault against the ACLU. The Civil Government entity chose to take the matter to Court, rather than settle; and that makes them just as obligated to pay for a loss as any other entity would be.
Your comment about spectacles does have some merit. When my screen is at "Preview", there is a distinct disparity between the actual preview type - both size and style - and the type in the composition box, which does make for problems with my bifocals. Though I doubt new ones would change things all that much.
KW,
Your one track gun possession fanaticism leads you to a good many illogical claims about what YOU call "another agenda".
While it is true that anyone can file a suit, almost anywhere, about almost anything, there is the matter of status, or standing, to be considered, if that suit is to go beyond a summary dismissal at first motion. In the matter of "gun control" - as with any area in which there has been a Supreme Court Decision that has become binding - this involves Jurisdiction as well..
Status/standing: How have YOU been "damaged", or deprived? Not merely because you are one among many who are fervent believers in owning an AK47 set for full automatic firing; but, rather, what actual loss have YOU incurred? And, as a group of fervent believers in owning an AK47etc., what actual damage, or loss, can you show as cause for relief?
Jurisdiction: Where did the damage, or loss, occur? By way of a State action? By way of a Federal Action? Where? Because the initial filing must be in the proper Jurisdiction. And, only when there be a "disparity of citizenship" - i.e., crossing of
State boundaries in some way - can a Federal Court assume Jurisdiction ab initio.
You're the plaintiff. You want your suit to be tried. Meet the requirements. (And the above is only a brief summary, at best.)
Now we come to the nature of further requirements: Just who is it you are making the Defendant in the suit? Governments are immune to suit in general. So, you can't buy your AK47 etc., by reason of a Statute. Who do you sue? Etc., so forth, at great length.
And, all this is just preliminary to actually getting into Court.
But you seem to think that an organization - in particular the ACLU - MUST jump on every single situation involving YOUR desire to own an AK47 set to fully automatic firing, regardless of the organization's resources, and regardless of the number of potentially triable other causes that they might be considering as well. Or that organization isn't meeting YOUR "standards" of what it "should do, and should be".
Gee, KW! YOU are surely special! Aren't you? Sure you are! You tell us that every time you post! Right up there with "40acres etc."
Posted by Old Grouch on July 26, 2007 11:02 AMCalm down OG and try and explain what it is you're mumbling.
You kept repeating AK47 but not sure how that applies to ANY OF MY POSTS.
But I hear you like straw for arguments since it can't fight back.
Your diatribe is amusing.
Posted by KW on July 26, 2007 11:16 AMKW,
You also seem to be excellent at creating "straw men". All your arguments about what the ACLU did, or did not, do about YOUR idea of the 2nd Amendment are just that.
You talk about "gun control legislation". I give one example of a part of it; i.e., restriction on ownership of automatic weapons.
You talk about "basic violations of civil rights" and "hidden agenda". I give you a little evidence of practical example of how these are dealt with; and attempt to point out that there is no 'hidden agenda" at all; rather, a practical set of conditions - and or obstacles to immediate conformity to what you are fantasizing - in reality that would be obvious to anyone who really understood what an agenda might be.
Your posting is equally amusing, old boy. Just as with Poor Johnny One Note and his "Libertarian-States-Rights" shtick, everything is "2nd Amendment MY way" with you.
Which, taken all round, is what helps to make the forum fun.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 26, 2007 12:04 PMCorrect OG - YOU brought up the useless AK47 ban. There are others you know.
Background checks
Waiting periods
Carrying restrictions
Gun free zones (gun safe they should call it)
How about the ACLU fighting for rights for illegals? Do you think that is OK?
Their priorities are well known. Whether or not you choose to align yourself with that group is up to you.
Posted by KW on July 26, 2007 02:08 PMThe ACLU has won an initial judgement voiding the immigrations laws in Hazelton, PA. They are no longer allowed to enforce the laws prohibiting illegal aliens from settling in their town.
Now there's a group looking out for the best interest of Americans, huh?
Posted by KW on July 26, 2007 02:19 PMCould anyone tell me why the ACLU(American Civil Liberties Union) has an office in London ENGLAND?
Posted by on July 26, 2007 03:26 PMKW,
As to the matter of "illegals": in Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution, it states, "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." And, I might also call your attention to the 6th Amendment, concerning criminal prosecutions, trials, etc.
I hear a great deal about "illegals", as a label used to whip up emotion against a particular peoples from a Country South of our lower borders. Most of this emotional rant centers around how to "round them up; throw them out; and keep them from coming back"; and it takes for granted that the label "illegal" automatically gives perfect authority and right to just that kind of thing, regardless of any other considerations.
Of course, I also know that, for Republicans - and for those "conservatives" who regard themselves as True Americans (Trademark Registered) especially - the Constitution is regarded as, "just another damned piece of paper", as President Bush himself regards it.
So, when the ACLU - or for that matter, anyone else - offers to act on behalf of someone labeled "illegal", I also realize that such action does rouse the wrath of those "damn piece of paper super-Americans", when they learn that there are times and places when the 6th Amendment of the Constitution - or any other part of that "damned piece of paper" - is invoked on behalf of parties they do not consider to be True Americans (Trademark Registered) such as themselves.
And, I am sure that this is the case here.
However, the passage of City Ordnances, or State and Federal Statutes, does not, in and of itself, make these items into something necessarily to be seen as the "best interest of Americans", despite those who regard the Constitution in the way you do. And, going into Court to void an unconstitutional City Ordnance, even though it does benefit "illegals", IS something that I, myself, as an American who believes that the Consitution is the foundation and bulwark of American rights and freedoms, do approve. And yes! It is very much O.K.!
Posted by Old Grouch on July 26, 2007 04:35 PMBased on your explanation, then one can assume that our immigration laws are unconstitutional? And in turn can I assume you are for open borders?
It appears to be the Constitution has been prostituted by the open border people, and backed by the far left crazies.
I have a very difficult time believing that our founding fathers could ever imagine that the document they wrote to protect the rights and freedoms of the citizens of this country would be used to allow illegal immigrates to break the law.
There is no doubt in my mind that the spirit in which this document was written, is dead. It has been picked apart and distorted by people who do not have the welfare for this country as a priority.
Posted by on July 26, 2007 05:22 PM05:22 AM Anonymous,
You begin by making a wrong assumption, from which you proceed to a series of wrong conclusions.
The challenge to the local City Ordnance does not challenge the immigration laws as such. Nor has anyone suggested that this particular Court case indicates, in any way whatsoever, that the immigration laws are unconstitutional.
As to my personal opinion concerning open borders, YES. I am for them. However, that has nothing to do with either the action of the ACLU in the City Ordnance matter, nor with immigration laws as such.
You seem to assume that the Constitution was written for "closed borders" - or only for the adherants to that policy - when you offer your comments about its "prostitution". That is very presumptious and insulting, on your part. But, again, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
The City Ordnance was challenged on the basis of ITS OWN Constitutionality, or lack thereof. NOT on the idea of " allow illegal immigrates (the word should be immigrants) to break the law". These are two different areas entirely.
And, there is no doubt in my mind that the spirit in which this document (the Constitution) was written is VERY MUCH ALIVE AND WELL, since the ideas of "the welfare for this country" are numerous and manifold, and not restricted to a single point of view.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 27, 2007 11:47 AMOld Grouch,
When a law that attempts to stop criminals from breaking the law is ruled unconstitutional, this country is in serious trouble.
And your "Open Border" stance tells me everything I need to know about your motivation. Support the criminals and to hell with the citizens! Now I understand why we can not get any type of immigration reform done in this country.
Posted by jgd777 on July 27, 2007 01:32 PMYou guys might be surprised to find out that I'm all for the ACLU, at least in theory. There is great value in an organization that continually challenges government infringements on our constitutionally protected civil rights.
Unfortunately, the ACLU fails in its goal because it is completely driven by a political agenda. Take the ACLU stance on gun rights. According to the ACLU web site (http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html)
"The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns."
That's an interesting approach for an organization so adamant in cherishing our civil liberties that it's willing to defend the likes of the American Nazi Party and the North American Man-boy Love Association. Yet, for the millions of law-abiding Americans who own guns, the ACLU offers absolutely zero recourse. They choose to ignore the overwhelming academic and legal consensus that the 2nd amendment protects the rights of the people as well as of the state to form a militia. Even if such a consensus didn't exist, wouldn't it be logical for the ACLU to try to maximize gun rights anyway?
But it doesn't. Why? For the same exact reason it defends Ward Churchill, even though the 1st amendment is not at stake. Because the ACLU is the very definition of an agenda-driven partisan organization. It cares so much about Churchill's freedom of speech but refuses to recognize CU's right to fire an employee guilty of plagiarism and a plethora of other misdeeds.
Posted by Dmitry on July 30, 2007 03:46 PM