The ACLU vs. America

[Tigermike 3,039]

The ACLU vs. America

Michelle Malkin

March 30, 2005

On April Fools' Day, the American Civil Liberties Union will show us what a joke its commitment to American civil liberties really is.

April 1st, in case you haven't heard, is the launch of the Minuteman Project, an all-volunteer effort by law-abiding American citizens to call attention to the nation's wide open southern border. Hundreds of Americans from New York to Michigan to California will travel down to the U.S.-Mexico border for a month to monitor illegal aliens and alert immigration enforcement officials if they witness law-breaking.

Call it the mother of all neighborhood watch programs.

In doing so, the Minutemen will be exercising their constitutionally protected freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Those would be fundamental civil liberties found in something called the, uh, First Amendment, of which the ACLU is supposed to be the foremost expert and champion. Or so the group and its celebrity supporters say. In sanctimonious new fund-raising ad campaigns, the organization features the likes of liberal actress Holly Hunter, who asks:

"Do you want to be heard without fear? I am not an American who believes that questioning or criticizing my government is unpatriotic."

Uh-huh. "Dissent is patriotic," the Left likes to preach. Except, apparently, if the questioning and criticizing deals with the government's abject failure to enforce immigration laws. Minuteman Project founder Jim Gilchrist has been harassed by open-borders activists at his home. The group is reportedly being targeted by savage illegal alien gangsters from Mara Salvatrucha (a.k.a. MS-13). Mexican government officials are lobbying American law enforcement officials to suppress the Minutemen's rights to speak and assemble.

But instead of coming to the defense of the Minutemen who are challenging our government, the ACLU has warned the 1,000 volunteers that it will send monitors to document the Americans' activities. Moreover, the ACLU has already threatened lawsuits against the American dissenters for exercising their rights.

This bullying of pro-immigration enforcement activists comes as no surprise to those of us who have followed the ACLU's aggressive open-borders agenda -- from its support for driver's licenses for illegal aliens, to its opposition to detaining illegal alien terror suspects after 9/11 and profiling foreign visitors from terror-friendly countries, to its efforts to stop local and state law enforcement officers from helping federal homeland security efforts.

ACLU of Arizona spokesman Ray Ybarra argues that the mere presence of the Minutemen at the border constitutes "unlawful imprisonment" of illegal (excuse me, "undocumented") aliens (excuse me, "migrants"). Ybarra told the Washington Times that the ACLU will have lawyers on standby ready to file civil cases against the volunteers. He warned that the Minutemen could "come to our state as 'vigilantes' and end up leaving as 'defendants.'"

The Minutemen have made it clear on their website and in repeated statements that they "will not violate anyone's civil rights, and will not abuse anyone from any country. . . . We will alert border patrol to the location of illegals, and wait for [the Border Patrol] to come and pick them up. We will follow illegal aliens from a distance and continue spotting them until authorities answer our cell phone and/or back-pack radio calls. All spotting, calls for assistance, and the response from the appropriate authorities will be chronicled and provided to any media representative."

Contrary to the ACLU and mainstream media representations of the group as racists and immigrant-bashers, the Minutemen are a diverse volunteer group that includes Americans of Mexican, Armenian, Russian, Lebanese, Indian and Cuban descent; and black and Native American minorities. Also among the volunteers are 19 legal immigrants from Mexico, Peru, Russia, New Zealand, England, Australia and the Philippines.

By recklessly linking the Minutemen to white separatists and casting them as outlaws, the civil liberties crowd engages in the very guilt-by-association smear tactics it has so loudly condemned. And in putting the protection of illegal aliens' rights over law-abiding Americans' civil liberties, the ACLU demonstrates on which side of the border its true allegiances lie.

Michelle Malkin is a syndicated columnist and maintains her weblog at michellemalkin.com

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michell...m20050330.shtml

[Auburn85 432]

The ACLU is as dangerous as a terrorist

They got an Idaho court to overturn a law that requires parental consent to have an abortion for girls under 18.

This means if a 12 year old gets pregnant, and she finds her way to a health clinic , she can get an abortion without her parent(s) ever knowing. This is insane!

In Washington State, they defended a 14 year old girl, when her mother listen in on her conversatiopn with her 18 year old boyfriend bragging about mugging an elderly woman. The ACLU convinces the courts that this was an invasion of the girl's privacy.

The ACLU makes it extremely difficult to parent.

They support NAMBLA'S rights.

They feel it's ok to explain how to rape young boys under the 1st Amendment

Even the founder of the ACLU believed we should live in a socialist country

Now they're trying to interfere with the Shiavo case

And like the article said, they're going after the minutemen. What are the minutemen doing that is so wrong? First off, they haven't even began their project. They plan to start Friday.

I think it's great what the minutemen are trying to do.

And you can't justify their greatness and existence for 1 good cause out of every 20 bad causes.

[Auburn85 432]

As you may know, the American Civil Liberties Union (search) wants Terri Schiavo (search) to die saying it believes she did not want to live with a feeding tube and if you don't believe that, you are violating Terri's privacy rights. Once again, the ACLU comes down on the progressive side of an issue as it does 100 percent of the time these days.

On Monday, the ACLU won a big victory when the Supreme Court allowed the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (search) to throw out an Idaho law requiring parental consent for under age abortion. That of course undermines American parents which is exactly what the ACLU wants.

Want more? OK...

• The ACLU believes any and all abortions should be legal.

• It believes American borders should be open. And it may sue a citizen's group called the Minutemen which will begin patrolling the southern border on Friday.

• The ACLU believes child pornography should be available on the Net. And it is also representing NAMBLA in a civil lawsuit in Massachusetts saying the North American Man-Boy Love Association has a right to print instructions on how to rape children.

• The ACLU believes pornographic outlets should be located wherever they want — in your neighborhood, next to a church, next to a school, no restrictions.

• It believes the military can't stop open displays of homosexuality within its ranks.

• It believes gay marriage and polygamy should be legalized.

• It is suing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (search) over torture allegations.

• And just today the ACLU criticized General Ricardo Sanchez (search) for the rough interrogation of some captured terrorists.

Are you getting all of this? Getting the picture?

It's quite apparent the American Civil Liberties Union wants a brand new America, where the gratification of the individual is paramount. In order to achieve that, the ACLU opposes all displays of religion on public property. It champions the secular and attacks judgment-based faith.

Finally, it is worth repeating a famous quote by the man who founded the ACLU, Roger Baldwin (search). This quote can be found in Baldwin's biography written by Peggy Lampson (search). Quote, "I am for socialism, disarmament and ultimately for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property and the abolition of the propertied class."

I hope everybody understands just how dangerous this well-funded ACLU is to your freedom. These people say they're looking out for Terri Schiavo. They say they are looking out for you. Don't believe it.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,152033,00.html

[Tiger Al 0]

If not for the ACLU and illegal immigrants you'd have a perfect life, huh, 85?

[Auburn85 432]

THose dang bigots are going to hurt everyone of those illegals

ACLU of Arizona to Provide Legal Observers During Controversial “Minuteman” Border Watch Program

 

March 30, 2005

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: media@aclu.org

ACLU, Advocacy Groups Fear Anti-Immigrant Violence

PHOENIX -- The American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, in its traditional role as a guardian of civil liberties, announced today that it will be providing legal observers throughout the month of April at the site of the Minuteman Project at the Arizona-Mexico Border.

The Minuteman Project, a widely publicized event planned for the month of April, has the potential to bring more than a thousand critics of U.S. immigration policy to Arizona for the stated purpose of protesting the alleged lack of enforcement at the U.S.- Mexico Border.

"We recognize the right of a country to defend its borders," said Eleanor Eisenberg, Executive Director of the ACLU of Arizona, "but it must be done by the proper authorities and in a humane way. Too many migrants, coming to this country for the jobs we offer, have died in the desert from heat, dehydration and exhaustion. It would be even more tragic to have migrants die as a result of violence."

In the past, the Minuteman sponsoring organization is alleged to have engaged in activities that go beyond First Amendment-protected activity and that is intended to intimidate, harass or otherwise interfere with the rights of others. Many immigrant advocacy groups, including the ACLU, have expressed concern that members of white supremacist and other hate organizations will be participating and may trigger violence.

The anticipated mix beginning on April 1 will include Minutemen, counter-protesters, demonstrators in support of the human rights of migrants, Border Patrol and FBI agents, and possibly local authorities. The ACLU of Arizona will provide legal observers as it has for other events. The observers are neutral observers and recorders and not participants, noted ACLU of Arizona Board President Stan Furman, a former Arizona State Senator.

"The First Amendment protects the rights of all to speak, gather and protest," said Furman, emphasizing that the ACLU has often represented the interests of those with whom it strongly disagrees. "We have no intention of preventing the Minutemen or other protesters from engaging in constitutionally-protected first amendment activity. However, we are also concerned that protesters not engage in activity that violates the civil rights of others."

Toward this end, the ACLU has urged the FBI and other law enforcement agencies to take an active role in preventing such abuses. At the same time, Furman said that the legal observers will monitor Minuteman activity and note any abuses of migrants to determine if legal action is warranted to protect against civil rights abuses and other possible criminal violations.

Ray Ybarra, an ACLU Racial Justice Fellow working on border and migrant issues in Douglas, Arizona, added, "Our concerns are based on the past history of abusive behavior by those who believe that the migrants are coming to ‘destroy our way of life.’ We must emphasize that these individuals are not to be dismissed as evil racists. Rather, they are symbolic of the fear and misunderstanding that exists in our society."

Observers will also monitor law enforcement activity and note any infringements on the First Amendment-protected activities of all of the groups.

http://www.aclu.org/ImmigrantsRights/Immig...m?ID=17864&c=22

[Auburn85 432]

ACLU Applauds Appeals Court Decision Upholding Minors' Right to Confidential Abortions

 

August 24, 2001

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CINCINNATI--In a victory for both minors and doctors, a federal appeals court ruled today that a doctor cannot be punished for providing an abortion to a minor without parental consent when the minor had no confidential and expeditious alternative to obtaining that consent.

"With today's decision, the court affirms once again that minors cannot be subjected to a blanket requirement of parental consent for an abortion if there is no real, working alternative for those who are unable to talk to their parents," said Julie Sternberg, a Staff Attorney at the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project who argued the appeal as friend of the court.

The case revolved around a couple's attempt to hold a Tennessee doctor and clinic liable for performing an abortion on their 17-year-old daughter without their consent.

At the time the abortion was performed, the ACLU had secured an injunction blocking enforcement of Tennessee's parental consent requirement. That law made it a crime for a minor to obtain an abortion without parental consent, unless the minor had gotten a "judicial bypass" - a court order permitting the abortion without parental consent. Because of the injunction, Tennessee courts were not considering requests for a judicial bypass when the couple's daughter sought her abortion.

The district court had dismissed the couple's case, and today, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed that decision. In a joint friend-of-the-court brief, the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project and Planned Parenthood Federation of America argued that physicians cannot be required to obtain parental consent for all minors seeking abortions unless there is a confidential and expeditious judicial alternative available.

The appeals court agreed, holding that without a judicial alternative, a young woman's right to obtain an abortion is unduly burdened "If there is no judicial bypass procedure in place, neither the minor nor her physician can legally be required to seek parental consent." Thus, the court added, "to allow this litigation to go forward would be tantamount to fostering an unconstitutional regime."

"The court has sent a clear message that doctors cannot be held liable for respecting their minor patients' constitutional rights," said Sternberg. "Any other result would not only infringe on young women's fundamental rights but also intimidate doctors from providing needed reproductive health care services."

The case is Blackard v. Memphis Area Medical Center (No. 00-5326). Attorneys in the case include Julie Sternberg, Louise Melling, and Jennifer Dalven from the national ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project.

http://www.aclu.org/WomensRights/WomensRig...?ID=10285&c=177

Hey, if a 12 year old wants to drive, I say let him drive. If a 5 year old want to pierce their tounge , hey' let them pierce their tongue

[Auburn85 432]

Federal Judge Orders Georgia School District to Remove Evolution Disclaimers

 

January 13, 2005

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: media@aclu.org

ATLANTA-A federal judge today ruled that placing disclaimer stickers warning that evolution is "a theory, not a fact" in public school science textbooks is an unconstitutional government intrusion on religious liberty.

The ruling comes in response to a lawsuit against the Cobb County School District brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia on behalf of five local parents. The parents argued that the disclaimer stickers would send the message to their children that they should reject the scientific theory of evolution in favor of religious viewpoints on origin.

"The school district gave evolution second-class status among all scientific theories and, at the same time, gave advantage to a specific religious viewpoint that rejects evolution," said Maggie Garrett, an ACLU of Georgia staff attorney who argued the case.

The Cobb County School District approved the evolution disclaimer in 2002, in response to criticism that the new science textbooks chosen by the administration did not include information about creationism or "intelligent design." District Court Judge Clarence Cooper wrote in today’s decision that, "the sticker sends a message to those who oppose evolution for religious reasons that they are favored members of the political community, while the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders."

Cooper ordered the school district to remove all stickers immediately.

Rabbi Scott Saulson, a board member of the ACLU of Georgia, applauded today’s decision and warned that introducing issues of faith into the science curriculum is inappropriate.

"People who wish faith to compete with science are asking faith to be judged by the same standards as theory, which is a standard of reasonable proof," Saulson said. "Faith is unique in that it is not predicated upon proof. To continue to mask religious belief as science will sooner or later besmirch both faith and religion."

Several other states, including Ohio and Tennessee (the site of the ACLU's original Scopes "Monkey Trial" case), have sought to force the teaching of creationism in the classroom. But those efforts have repeatedly been struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court as unconstitutional.

In a similar case, the ACLU of Pennsylvania filed a lawsuit in December challenging a controversial decision by the Dover Area School Board to require biology teachers to present "intelligent design" as an alternative to the scientific theory of evolution. The lawsuit argues that "intelligent design," which is an assertion that life was created suddenly by a supernatural entity, is inherently a religious argument that falls outside the realm of science. The ACLU filed the lawsuit jointly with Americans United for Separation of Church and State and attorneys with Pepper Hamilton LLP on behalf of 11 Dover parents

Did they say GOD IS A FACT? NO!

[Auburn85 432]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: media@aclu.org

Groundbreaking Report Focuses on the Impact of the Drug War on Women and Families

photo by Tyrone Turner

Chanda Cooley and son Samuel Cooley

At www.fairlaws4families.org, you can download Caught in the Net, get a schedule of events and read about the families impacted by the drug war.

NEW YORK -- The ACLU, Break the Chains: Communities of Color and the War on Drugs, and the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law today released a report that compiles for the first time existing research on the effects of current drug laws and sentencing policies on women and their families. The report, Caught in the Net: the Impact of Drug Policies on Women & Families, is co-authored by the three organizations and is being launched at a national conference of experts on issues relating to women, families and drugs at NYU School of Law on March 17th and 18th.

"We’ve gone from being a nation of latchkey kids to a nation of locked-up moms, where women are the nvisible prisoners of drug laws, serving hard time for someone else’s crime," said Lenora Lapidus, Director of the ACLU Women’s Rights Project. "Family values ought to mean keeping families together. Treatment can cure drug addiction, but there’s no cure for a family destroyed."

The conference will inform the ongoing dialogue among experts about how best to reform drug laws and influence drug policymakers to consider the unique needs of women and their families. More than 150 women and children impacted by drug laws, state and federal judges, health and drug treatment professionals, lawyers, legislative staffers, those working in correctional institutions, researchers and women’s rights and drug policy reform activists will attend.

In the wake of Martha Stewart’s release from federal prison last week and the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark rulings on sentencing policies in U.S. v. Booker and U.S. v. FanFan, the Caught in the Net report highlights the sky-rocketing incarceration rates of women in the United States. The number of women serving time in state prison facilities for drug-related offenses has increased 888 percent since 1986 according to the Sentencing Project, and U.S. Bureau of Justice statistics show that more than one million women are currently in prison, in jail, or on parole or probation.

In a letter posted on her website prior to her release from Alderson Federal Prison Camp in West Virginia, Stewart encourages the American people "to ask for reforms, both in sentencing guidelines, in length of incarceration for nonviolent first-time offenders, and for those involved in drug-taking."

"Women and their children have for too long remained the unseen victims of the drug war. The Caught in the Net report and conference are meant to bring women’s experiences into the ongoing debate that lawmakers are having about sentencing reform," said Deborah Small, Executive Director of Break the Chains.

The report and conference feature representative stories of women minimally, peripherally or unknowingly caught up in drug activity who are found "guilty by association" with their husbands and boyfriends involved in the drug trade. Examples in the report illustrate the ways in which expanded liability laws like conspiracy, accomplice liability, constructive possession and asset forfeiture laws unfairly punish women for the actions of others. With little or no information to trade prosecutors, these women serve the longest sentences for the least involvement in drug offenses.

"This country can no longer ignore the devastation of families and communities when record numbers of women and mothers are locked up for drug offenses," said Kirsten Levingston, Director of the Criminal Justice Program at the Brennan Center for Justice. "It’s time to promote drug policies that work, to stop wasting money and to use our social systems to help women, not hurt them."

I'm confused. Is drugs the root of the problem or drug policies? http://www.aclu.org/WomensRights/WomensRig...?ID=17759&c=171

[Auburn85 432]

Curley v. NAMBLA

The ACLU of Massachusetts is representing the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) and a number of individual NAMBLA members in a civil lawsuit brought in U.S. District Court. The suit, an action for wrongful death and for civil rights violations, claims that NAMBLA and the individual defendants are responsible for the kidnaping, rape and murder of a 10 year old boy because NAMBLA publications and the material which appeared on its Internet site allegedly "urged the general public to illegally rape male children." The plaintiffs claim that one of the convicted murderers had become a member of NAMBLA approximately one year prior to the murder and that, as a result of reading its publications and the material on its web site, he changed his sexual orientation and "became obsessed with having sex with and raping young male children." ACLUM's motion to dismiss the suit on the grounds that the claims were barred by the First Amendment was denied by the court, which noted that the complaint could be read to suggest that the defendants did more than to make available the material contained in their publications and on their web site. The court rejected the plaintiffs efforts to make a RICO (Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization) claim against NAMBLA and dismissed a federal civil rights claim. In a subsequent order, the court dismissed the claims against NAMBLA as an organization, holding that, as an unincorporated association, it could not be sued in its own name. The court also held, however, that it could exercise personal jurisdiction over some twenty individual members of NAMBLA who do not reside in Massachusetts. The court's rulings allow the remaining defendants to renew their request for dismissal of the suit based on a factual showing that their conduct was limited to the expression of ideas and information. Attorneys: John Reinstein, Sarah Wunsch.

Demarest v. Athol/Orange Community Television

http://www.aclu-mass.org/legal/docket_2002-2003.asp