Traitors Everywhere: The ACLU Should Look Into This

Where an individual disagrees with a board position on policy matters, he/she should refrain from publicly highlighting the disagreement. In a recent incident, the director demanded that one of his opponents step outside, where he chastised her for the look on her face. How about that for a tough policy?

I think this is egregious. Maybe the ACLU will file a protest.

Posted by Jack at May 24, 2006 1:50 PM
Comments
Comment #150928

Huh?

Posted by: Adrienne at May 24, 2006 2:12 PM
Comment #150931

Adrienne

I just think it is a funny position for the ACLU. It is the old saying that they can dish it out, but they can’t take it.

Posted by: Jack at May 24, 2006 2:16 PM
Comment #150932

That’s common business practice, Jack. If you don’t agree with the organization, you can quit. And yes, I think you’re article is cute. You seem to be on a comedy jag lately. I like it.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 24, 2006 2:16 PM
Comment #150946

Jack:

I happen to believe that the board is wrong and that anyone should be allowed to criticize the board. Yes, the decision was made to make it easier to collect donations. But that is not a good enough reason, as far as I am concerned.

But what does this incident prove? That the ACLU is not in favor of free speech? Of course not. When it comes to free speech there are many points of view. The ACLU has devoted all its energies to championing the free speech of liberals, conservatives and even lousy nazis.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at May 24, 2006 2:38 PM
Comment #150954

As one of the strongest defenders of the ACLU on WB, I’ll come out and say that this seems very hypocritical and dumb.

All I can say in their defense is that it’s a proposed rule change, not an approved rule change, but it’s still not good.

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 24, 2006 2:54 PM
Comment #150958

Seems pretty dumb to me too.

Posted by: Max at May 24, 2006 2:59 PM
Comment #150969

Doesn’t surprize me. The ACLU is definitely a place where right thinking is rewarded and wrong thinking is punished.

Posted by: goodkingned at May 24, 2006 3:20 PM
Comment #150970

The ACLU should take care not to smother free expression within its own ranks, indeed, and its good you bring this to our attention.

When you see such behavior in your own party, where moderates who are pro-choice, critical of Bush, critical of excessive spending, or flexible on matters of taxation are cut out, I’m sure you will fight for the robust spirit of discourse in your own party.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 24, 2006 3:29 PM
Comment #150976

Stephen

When any Republicans do this, you all bring it to everyone’s attention right quick. There is more discourse in Republican circles than there seems to be at the ACLU or among Dems. You mention pro choice. We have Rudi and Arnold, among others, who are among the most prominent Republicans. Which of the big Dems are pro-life? We have no shortage of criticism of the President for taxes etc.

There is a difference between arguing, or even reacting strongly, and banning dissent. You really cannot say Republicans ban dissent, since we seem to have so much of it.

Posted by: Jack at May 24, 2006 3:36 PM
Comment #150981

Today a board member of the ACLU has asked the head of the ACLU to step down. He charged that the head did not know what the ACLU was all about. Breeches in the business, I hope. The person charging the head with hurting finances and fund raising.

Posted by: tomh at May 24, 2006 3:54 PM
Comment #150984

Many here appear to not be reading the entire article. There is a legal issue here of consequence and debate. I have been a Board Member of a Homeowner’s Assn. and am currently president of the Board at Vote Out Incumbent’s for Democracy 527 organization. The other side of this issue at the ACLU is exemplified by the following quote from the article:

“Many of us simply think that in exercising that right, [to express disagreement] board members should also consider their fiduciary duty to the A.C.L.U. and its process ideals.”

(bracketed text mine for clarification).

There is a fiduciary duty under law that Board Members have to the efficacy of the organization. All states have such laws regarding fiduciary duty and such laws have direct financial consequences for insurance rates, and organization’s memberships and revenues, and Board Members have a fiduciary to not act in contradiction to the stated aims and purposes of the organization.

This ACLU issue is anything but black and white. I can see merit to the arguments of both sides of this debate, and it is one helluva pickle they got themselves into torn between the 1st Amendment and Fiduciary Duty laws. As a card carrying ACLU member, having to decide at this moment without further review, I would have to favor the 1st Amendment side. But, I am not done reviewing this.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 24, 2006 4:06 PM
Comment #150985
Which of the big Dems are pro-life?

Harry Reid, minority leader of the Senate.
Bob Casey, Senate candidate in PA.

There are more.

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 24, 2006 4:07 PM
Comment #150991

Lawnboy

Okay, Dems are almost as tolerant as Republicans.

Although if you have to go down to a CANDIDATE for Senate for a big name, it may not be all that significant.

Posted by: Jack at May 24, 2006 4:12 PM
Comment #150992

Lawnboy:

If Harry Reid is the thin thread of life for all the little fetuses, they better kiss their ass goodbye. Reid’s prolife support is in name only and the only reason he claims to be prolife is to not be stoned by his Mormon support base.

Posted by: goodkingned at May 24, 2006 4:12 PM
Comment #150998

I still want to know where the ACLU was during Kelo v. New London…

Just a thought.

Posted by: Greg at May 24, 2006 4:22 PM
Comment #151000
Although if you have to go down to a CANDIDATE for Senate for a big name, it may not be all that significant.

He’s current Pennsylvania state treasurer, and he’s competing against Santorum in a highly visible race that’s drawing major money and attention nationwide.

He’s no peon.

Besides, those two names are just the ones off the top of my head.

If Harry Reid is the thin thread of life for all the little fetuses, they better kiss their ass goodbye.

I have no idea what this means.

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 24, 2006 4:32 PM
Comment #151002

Jack,
“You mention pro choice. We have Rudi and Arnold, among others, who are among the most prominent Republicans.”

I didn’t know Rudi held an office position now. Not to mention both are from the most populous blue states in the union. Therefore if they want votes, they better be pro choice.

I think Stephen made a great point. Talk all you want about discourse in your party, but I have seen the results from the past elections. Your party continues to elect officials who believe in massive spending (biggest debt in history not to mention the fact that a communist country now owns a majority of our trade bonds), infringing personal rights (aka Teri Shivo and domestic spying) and big government (hence the Homeland Security Department that Clinton thought of 10 years ago) all of which are supposed to be things your party disagrees with.

If there was ANY type of discourse, some of these guys would have lost their jobs. Now the only hope to get rid of them (other than the elections in 6 months) is to hope they are indicted.

Posted by: Vincent Vega at May 24, 2006 4:44 PM
Comment #151006


The ACLU is just plain ridiculous. They’ve ripped this country apart with their agenda, driven issues to the point that they are now eating their own. “Let them eat cake.” Ha!

Posted by: rahdigly at May 24, 2006 5:02 PM
Comment #151010

Those pesky ACLU members! They have the audacity to think that African Americans should be equal and even have the gall to say they should go to the same school as whites. Not to mention drinking out of the same water fountain.

Man I hate those guys.

Next thing you know they will say that those gays are are equal too.

Posted by: Vincent Vega at May 24, 2006 5:19 PM
Comment #151012

Vincent

Strawman.

The ACLU has been on the right side of many issues, but also not.

Posted by: Jack at May 24, 2006 5:29 PM
Comment #151015

Jack,
Nice insult. After looking at your link and seeing your picture I couldn’t help from noticing that you are a white male. Man it must have been hard for you in Virginia in the 50’s huh?

So next time you decide to poke fun or say I have no brain, actually understand what you are talking about. Since I doubt you have ever been kicked out of a resturant, or not allowed to sit in the front of a bus, you couldn’t possibly understand what this organization has done for us.

Posted by: Vincent Vega at May 24, 2006 5:37 PM
Comment #151016

The ACLU fights to protect and defend the Bill of Rights protections for ALL American citizens. If there were no ACLU, we would have to invent one to protect ourselves against the very government our founding fathers warned us again and again to protect ourselves from. Governments will never protect individual rights. It is antithetical. The ACLU does. Many issues come down to hair splitting and gray areas, and an organization such as the ACLU has to make decisions on these. No member of the ACLU agrees 100% on all of the organization’s positions. That is because the ACLU represents a diverse group of Americans who differ on many issues that fall into gray areas or hair splitting. But, without the ACLU, your rights would be far less today, than without it. That is a fact of historical record of ACLU challenges won on behalf of the Bill of Rights.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 24, 2006 5:47 PM
Comment #151017

Jack-
I do believe there are a fair number of Democrat pro-lifers. We haven’t ostracized them to the extent that Republicans have their pro-choicers.

Tell me, though, why is it that we don’t hear the notion of Tax hikes to bring things even from your side? Why is it that you people, despited obvious budget deficits of startling proportion are still cutting taxes? That to me is evidence of the lack of discourse, because I damn well know that many moderate Republicans had their doubts about the tax cuts. I bet it’s easier to find a Democratic politician who’ll discuss spending cuts than a Republican who will discuss raising taxes.

Where are the Republicans who dissented to the president’s war plan when it started becoming obvious it made no sense? Where were the cabinet officials telling their president that if the budget and the supplementals they were not vetoed, it would raise spending? Where was that discourse when the Republican congress passed the Medicare Drug Benefit, the kind of entitlement I’ve heard the GOP lament for years? Where is this discourse, given all the signing statements I hear about Bush making?

Why is Michael Hayden still a shoe-in for CIA head given all the creative interpretations of the constitution he’s been making? I thought this was the party of strict interpretation.

I hear plenty of dissent, but more seems to be coming from outside Washington, outside the core of power, than from within.

The ACLU situation seems a sorry mess to me, and I said as much by telling them that they shouldn’t smother discourse within. The question with you, is where’s all the discussion about these issues when your party needs it, when it’s making all these big decisions that are costing it politically?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 24, 2006 5:49 PM
Comment #151018

Vincent

I didn’t grow up in Virginia. But even if I had, this stuff happened a long time ago, I am old, but not old enough to have participated. (BTW I have been kicked out of restaurants on seveal occassions, although always for good reasons.)

But don’t give me that racist crap. Have you been thrown out of a restaurant lately? When last have you been sent to the back of a bus?

If you want to see racism, I will give you a recent example of racism. When my family came back to the U.S., I tried to get my daughter into the advanced placement. They told me that since she had not been in before, there was no chance. As I mentioned, I check my daughter off as hispanic, since she was born in Latin America. When the school system noticed that, THEY send me a letter requesting that I enroll my daughter in the program. She had not changed in any way except they now thought she was hispanic. That is the NEW racism. The old stuff is gone.

I don’t think the ACLU is concerned about the new racism.

I didn’t say anything about your brain or even about you in that post, BTW, just the argument. The “strawman” is a type of logical fallacy, not the guy from the Wizard of Oz.

Posted by: Jack at May 24, 2006 5:50 PM
Comment #151020

Jack,

I apologize then.

Posted by: Vincent Vega at May 24, 2006 5:53 PM
Comment #151041

LIBERALISM ALWAYS GENERATES THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF IT’S STATED INTENT
qoute attribution to Jim Quinn- website is warroom.com

Posted by: JR at May 24, 2006 7:33 PM
Comment #151048

And Conservatism has nothing to do with conservation.

(says me)

Posted by: Rocky at May 24, 2006 7:51 PM
Comment #151053

“Voters can always know what to expect from Republicans. The exact opposite of what they campaign on.”

DRRemer, here at WatchBlog.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 24, 2006 8:02 PM
Comment #151060

David,

Thank you.

Some where in this country there has to be a middle ground where we can all meet to take this country back from the extremes.

Posted by: Rocky at May 24, 2006 8:13 PM
Comment #151061

PEOPLE!!!
I’m sure you can remember legislation that was “put forward” by those most seemingly “good hearted”….that same rule of law, section of code..what-EVER…which often times became a totally different animal. Heh-heh. Soooo much for the “evoluton” theory. I’m not Even a “luke-warm” fan of the ACLU..but in many ways they have been a deterrent, to legislation gone wild. They SOMETIMES serve OUR purpose. SOME times they are the reason….oooops….did I write “reason”?
Me? I carried pamphlets for McGovern, then there was Viet-Nam (for me). I lost my Track-X Country grant to a democrat governor- who thought he’d fire a “parting shot” at the incoming republican governor: his “austerity program” cut all aid to private colleges and universities. Yeah, THAT kinda hurt: a young citizen , son of a FireFighter- w/3 younger siblings at home. Pity party for me (music, anyone?) , naw. I’ve been an independent since ‘73. I’m a survivor. “Airborne”!!!!!!!!!
p.s. Don’t view this as something from either “side” of the aisle….WE ARE AMERICANS!!!! It’s good to know some of us are still capable of “reasoning”

Posted by: jonboy at May 24, 2006 8:26 PM
Comment #151078

Vincent

Thanks. No need, however.

Posted by: Jack at May 24, 2006 9:59 PM
Comment #151121

Hey Rocky, Have you ever heard of “crunchy” conservatives? We are the tofu-eating, sandal wearing and trail-reparing part of the conservative movement, and yes, we DO believe that conservation and “conservative” go hand in hand. We like the enviroment just as much as the idiot tree huggers that I keep encountering here in Washington, but I don’t burn down developments to make my point while making a gettaway in a (gas-powered)SUV!
So, yeah…conservation equals conservative, even if you don’t think it conforms to your (narrow) views on the topic.

Posted by: HardHatHarry at May 25, 2006 1:59 AM
Comment #151125

Glad to hear racism is dead in Virginia. Can I say Tinman? Is that a heartless argument? Personally I prefer the Toto argument. Bite the damn Witch. I agree that some Latino organizations promulgate reverse racism, but just because they don’t have separate drinking fountains, please don’t tell me racism is dead in Virginia. Yes, Virginia, there is a KKK. You weren’t around in the fifties Jack?…. you young little….. oops, that sounds like ageism.

Posted by: gergle at May 25, 2006 2:06 AM
Comment #151160

I was in the South in the days of Lester Maddox and his Axe Handles. It was my introduction to America - the Land Of The Free…

I remember the Water Cannon, and the Gas and the Dogs used against protesters, and the Strange Fruit found hanging from isolated trees by lonely Southern Roads. I was quite young then: it made a Lasting Impression upon me.

I remember, as well, that it was Conservatives who started a Civil War to defend a “State’s Right” to allow for Legal Slavery. I remember that it was Conservatives who voted against Desegregation, and later against the provisions of the Civil Rights Act, and continuously, to this very day, against renewing it when it comes up.

I remember. And I will NEVER forget.

Posted by: Bett(er)y at May 25, 2006 9:22 AM
Comment #151167

The ACLU did fight for liberty and freedom decades ago. But in todays society right is wrong and wrong is right. That mantra is quite apparent in todays ACLU. Today they fight for a child’s right to have sex with adults, specifically boys and adult men. They fight for the murderers of pregnant women or their babies not to be held accountable for the deaths of the baby. The murderers just performed an “illegal abortion”. They are constantly seen defending the acts of violent criminals and pissing on their victims. They are so pro-abortion they fight against anything that remotely looks a stance for life. They are now about protecting liberal rights and not protecting right.

Posted by: lllplus2 at May 25, 2006 10:11 AM
Comment #151171

Until the civil rights movement black people voted republican. Why? Lincoln was a republican. The south, however, was all demcractic during the civil rights movement. Guess who was keeping all the black people of the south from voting? It wasn’t the republicans. Why would they keep people from voting for them?

Posted by: lllplus2 at May 25, 2006 10:20 AM
Comment #151178

“They are constantly seen defending the acts of violent criminals and pissing on their victims.”

The ACLU doesn’t defend the “acts”, only the “rights” of the accused.

Hopefully, that isn’t too subtle of a distinction for you.

Posted by: Rocky at May 25, 2006 10:34 AM
Comment #151183

Betty

You may never forget Betty, but do you remember what they said about the Bourbons and their ability to not to forget or learn?

You tend to define things in a very particular way. Whatever you don’t like or consider bad, you call conservative. You really don’t understand the subject.

Think of the confederacy for a minute and then of the south after. Were they in favor of a free market and the free movement of labor or did they enact laws to protect favored groups? Did they welcome new investment in industries or did they try to protect their “indigenous” institutions? When you answer all these questions, you see that it sounds more like a liberal policy. And of course, almost all confederates were democrats and the Republican Party was founded to oppose slavery.

It is very hard to project our current arrangements back into past times. Conservatives in the U.S. are a diverse group (as are liberals). Most conservatives believe in the free market (which breaks down racism, hence the NEED for Jim Crow laws to perpetuate it). The free market cares only about one color and that is the color of money. Racists always and everywhere seek political remedies to economics that are changing society to make it more inclusive.

You also might be interested in the party breakdown of votes for the civil rights act

The Original House Version:
· Democratic Party: 153-96 (61%-39%)
· Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
The Senate Version:
· Democratic Party: 46-22 (68%-32%)
· Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate Version, voted on by the House:
· Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
· Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

Re racism in Virginia (or anywhere else) prejudice exists everywhere. But the concept of race is becoming too broad. The test should be ONLY the substitution principle. IF you substitute one designation for another does the result change. So that means if a black guy and a white guy do exactly the same things and the result differs, you have racism. We should always be against that and I always have been and always am.

The case of my daughter’s affirmative action experience is a clear case of racism at work (we did not take advantage of it BTW), but that is not something particular to Virginia AND it is considered a good thing by most liberals.

So let’s judge everyone by the content of their characters, and not the color of their skins.

Posted by: Jack at May 25, 2006 10:44 AM
Comment #151197
Today they fight for a child’s right to have sex with adults, specifically boys and adult men.

No, they do not support the goals of NAMBLA. Instead, they defend citizens when the government unconstitutionally encroaches on their rights. In this specific case, those citizens are abhorent.

Fortunately for all of us, the ACLU does not think that your rights as a citizen disappear if people don’t like you.

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 25, 2006 11:22 AM
Comment #151198

Irony
American-only documented
Civil-what we are only to those who agree with us
Liberties- Hey! I remember those!
Union- What I am watching dissolve before my eyes.

Posted by: jblym at May 25, 2006 11:22 AM
Comment #151211

The ACLU does NOT fight to protect the rights of ALL Americans. They will steadfastly refuse to represent certain rights in court. They pick and choose a token few high profile cases to give the impression of non-bias.

Posted by: pige at May 25, 2006 11:56 AM
Comment #151307

A note of desegregation:

It is interesting that only the South was desegregated. Everyone down here was tossed in the salad mixer and liberally distributed (hehehe) in a random manner.

Perhaps, the norteast would benefit from greater desegregation. Who remembers those darling Irish mothers tossing bricks at black school children in Boston in the sixties? What about all the charming neighborhood distinctions, Irish, Italian, Spainish, et cetera, that still exist in New York where being of the wrong ancestry will bring down a beating?

Say what you will about the South, but we live intermingled and given the different cultures here, some conflict is unavoidable. Northerners never mingled racial and ethnic groups on a large scale and it is hypocrytical for them to claim the high ground on this issue.

Posted by: goodkingned at May 25, 2006 3:02 PM
Comment #151313

ned,

Nice note about Boston in your claim that the North never desegregated. Actually, Boston was the site of one of the most extensive desegregation busing systems in the country. Thanks for pointing us directly to the place that disproves your claim.

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 25, 2006 3:11 PM
Comment #151326

Lawnboy:

Yes, the schools, under court order, were desegregated. Why do you think the bricks were being thrown? And when did this court forced school desegragation occur? I lived in Mississippi and had attended desegregated schools for years prior to the forced desegregation in the Northeast. Also, only the schools were desegregated, not the neighborhoods. In the South the neighborhoods are largely desegregated.

It isn’t the high road, if the government has to force the issue. By the way, the forced school desegregation was a boon to private education in the North, with tremendous increases in private school enrollment in order to avoid the mixing of the races.

Posted by: goodkingned at May 25, 2006 3:43 PM
Comment #151362

Jack

Ha, ha, “tolerant as Republicans.” Good one!

Posted by: Mental Wimp at May 25, 2006 5:49 PM
Comment #151433

Mental

Yes. We don’t throw pies at speakers on campus. We cheer for the pro-choice speakers at the conventions and we are less likely to call names than the blue guys (just look at the posts)

Posted by: Jack at May 25, 2006 10:28 PM
Comment #151434

Jack,

Sometimes pies need to be thrown.

Posted by: Rocky at May 25, 2006 10:40 PM
Comment #151440

lawnboy and ned,

Being born in Alabama, living there until 15 and then moving north I can tell you in alot of ways the north is worse than the south. It is funny how some people equate being conservative to being a racist.

In the south I was once beat up by 2 brothers because I was the only black kid in the neighborhood. I was 10 and these kids were like 12 and 14. I told some of the other white kids and they were very upset. One helped me get a little pay back and all the others cheered me on. Was I called the occassional nigger? yes, it happened but not very often.

In the north, I date the beautiful 15 year girl who later would become my wife. She is white and Puerto Rican. In one suburb she grows up in she is shunned for not being completely white, similar to the beginning of “My Big Fat Greek Wedding”. She moves to a different city where we meet in school. We live on opposite sides of town, but we meet in school because she is forcibly bussed to my side of town. I know most of the people in her neighborhood and while not friends with them all, we are friendly to each other. Once her and I start dating people on the street start writing “nigger lover” all over the neighborhood. A few even yell it at her out their windows. Of course they never said anything while I was around. They were all sugary sweet. Her parents were fine with me while we were dating, but the moment we talked about marriage they tried to break us up.

So north, south? The difference is in south the racism is right out there in your face without a doubt about how a person feels. In the north it is hidden and only comes out when your back is turned.

Posted by: lllplus2 at May 25, 2006 11:10 PM
Post a comment