Liberty Just in Case

A Dialogue for the September 12th World

Archive for May 25th, 2005

Stop the ACLU Blogburst -Selective Civil Rights

Posted by zaphriel on May 25, 2005

Originally Posted At “Stop The ACLU” by Jay777

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”-Voltaire

The right to express unpopular opinions, advocate despised ideas(NAMBLA) and display graphic images is something the ACLU has steadfastly defended for all of its history. Exception: in the case for pro-lifers.

The ACLU’s Reproductive Rights Project has a lot to do with why the ACLU is so reluctant to defend the rights of anti-abortion protesters.

With a $2 million dollar budget and a staff of 17 employees, Janet Benshoof was the Union’s most devoted activist for abortion rights…..she became so overextended in her approach that she advocated mob pressure on the judiciary; she pushed for “pro-choice” activists to march on court rooms where abortion cases were being heard.Twilight of Liberty

To the ACLU, anti-abortion protesters are not seen in the same light as civil rights demonstrators in the 60’s, but as lunatic fascists out to destroy freedom.

Hence, the reluctance of the ACLU to defend principle, that is, the exercise of First Amendment rights by anti-abortion activists. Ironically, real fascists-like the American Nazis and Klansmen-have had their rights protected more often and with greater vigor by the ACLU than anti-abortion demonstrators.Twilight of Liberty

Of course there are loonies in the anti-abortion movement, but that was true of the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement of the 60’s, and even today in the “pro-choice” demonstrators. Every movement has it’s fringe element. But while the ACLU was right on top in defending any violations of the law for all of these movements, when it comes to the opponents of abortion having their First Amendment rights violated by the authorities, the ACLU is completely absent.

Not even having the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act(RICO) thrown at anti-abortion protesters moved the ACLU into action.

The ACLU is nominally opposed to the RICO statute, and there are some senior members, like Washington official Antonio Califa, who are truly opposed to the invocation of RICO against any protesters, including opponents of abortion. However, due largely to the influence of Benshoof, the ACLU’s record is grievously stained in this area.Twilight of Liberty

It was actually her suggestion in a booklet titled, “Preserving the Right to Choose: How to Cope with Violence and Disruption at Abortion Clinics.” The ACLU would not tolerate the use of RICO against nuclear weapons dissidents, but in the case of anti-abortion protesters the matter is quite different. In fact, the ACLU has actually used the RICO against them. When pro-life demonstrators were sued under RICO in Philadelphia, the local chapter of the ACLU filed an amicus brief on behalf of the plaintiffs, the Northeast Women’s Center.

The ACLU missed another opportunity to defend civil liberties in 1989 in West Harford, Connecticut. It was on June 17 that 261 persons were arrested, and then physically abused by police, for staging a sit-in.

The police used “come-a-long” holds, or “pain compliance holds”, with a result that many claimed permanent nerve damage. Some were denied medical care, and others were not allowed phone calls for over two days. One woman had to have surgery after the police damaged her uterus. The ACLU did nothing.

When John Spear, a publisher of a small New York newspaper, wrote an editorial against police brutality, he too was slapped with a RICO suit. He was charged with extortion. The ACLU did nothing.

“Why do they still call it a civil liberties union?” commented ACLU member and nemesis Nat Hentoff. When pressed about cases like the West Hartford one, the ACLU typically responds that it can’t get involved with the defense of antiabortion protesters because it is already committed to the side of the abortion clinics. When John Leo asked Alan Dershowitz, “Can it be that the affiliates sometimes deliberately involve themselves early on one side so they will have an excuse not to help victims on the other?” the Harvard Law professor replied, “Absolutely. They go to the pro-choice people and say, “Get us in right away, “thereby giving them the excuse of conflict of interest in the event they are contacted by the anti-abortion side. And what does the ACLU say when asked specifically about its duplicity regarding RICO? Lynn Paltrow, who worked for Benshoof, explained the Union’s attitude: “Its ACLU policy to oppose application of RICO, but there are those on staff who feel that as long as RICO exists, this kind of behavior (Operation Rescue tactics) does fit.” “In other words,” as John Leo puts it, “RICO is totally bad, but sort of useful.”Twilight of Liberty,

It looks pretty clear to me. In the eyes of the ACLU you the First Amendment protects child molesters, perverts, and fascists, but not Pro-lifers! Quite hypocritical in my opinion.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst! If you would like to join, it is very simple.

Go to our new portal at Protest The ACLU , click where it says “sign up now”, and fill out a simple form. This will enable us to send you a weekly newsletter with information, and keep your email private. Current members who have not registered, please do so. There are additional advantages and features that will be available for you there…you can opt to use them, or not. Thank you!
A Warning To Liberals:

Freedom of speech is one of our greatest rights, there is a reason why it is the First Amendment, it is that important. The ACLU feigns being the fighter for everybody’s rights, but when it comes down to it, they only care about those peoples rights that match their communist agenda. Time and time again they have proven by their actions that they only care about those Americans that can advance their goals. They are not the fighters for freedom the pretend to be, if you disagree with their platforms of socialism and eventual communism, they will not defend you. Just because you may agree with them now, doesn’t mean they won’t turn on you too.

Sites Already on Board are on my sidebar to the left.

Visit them and see what they had to say.

We are trying to raise money for full page ads and eventually commercials exposing the ACLU’s radical agenda.
Help us out! Buy a bumper sticker!

Click Below To See Our Store!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

The Deal: What Happens When One Posts on Two Hours Sleep

Posted by Mark on May 25, 2005

My 3rd grader and I were listening to Robert Byrd (D-WV) on the radio, and he asked me why the Senator was going on and on for so long. I replied that some people can talk for hours and hours and never really say anything. He said he couldn’t understand how that could be, as when people talked they always said something. I smiled, and said “Son, you’ve never met a politician.” His mind went tilt at that point, and we began talking baseball, which is a far more important topic than politics anyway…sigh.

I’ve had some time to sleep on The Deal, and wish, as they say in Congress, to revise and extend my remarks:

I do think The Deal was a bad thing for Republicans. It would have been better to have ended the Filibuster. The use of the filibuster by the Democrats in such a systematic fashion needed to be stopped. Joe, I’m sure you know your statistic of 200 out of 210 judges approved is misleading to say the least. You know that Appellate judges, where it matters the most next to the Supreme Court, is much, much lower than your figure shows. It’s closer to 67%, the lowest percentage in modern history.

The vote to end the filibuster would have allowed votes on all the Judicial nominees. And yes Patricia, I do indeed want to see Conservatives in control of all four branches of government. See my reply to your comment on my previous post. Those votes may still happen, and then we’ll see if the Democrat seven can be trusted. We will also see if John McCain can be trusted. I would doubt the latter, even with several days of sleep….

Be that as it may, I do understand the desire to compromise on the part of Graham, DeWyne, and Warner. It’s hard to work in a place where there is constant conflict. Trouble is, their compromise didn’t stop anything. It simply delayed the inevitable. Does anyone really doubt that the battle will now be joined over the next Supreme Court nomination? Then what will the Republic 7 do? Or better yet, what will the Democrat 7 do?

We all know this fight comes down to Abortion in the end. I have no doubt that Bush will nominate pro-lifers to the upcoming Supreme Court vacancies. There’s no doubt that the Maine contingent and Chafee will oppose that. So it again comes down to the Democrat 7, and Graham, DeWyne, and Warner. We’ll see in the next few months if The Deal will last….I’m betting it won’t.

OpinionJournal has it just about right.

Posted in War and Terror | Leave a Comment »

File this in the “Hmmm?” Section

Posted by zaphriel on May 25, 2005

Another one from, “Why Do We Say It?” by Castle Books, This one is about the term “Platform”.

What is the reason we call a political party’s statement of its aims a “platform”?

At one time, a political candidate’s only means of campaigning was to appear before his constituents in order to win their votes. To be seen and heard he had to stand upon a platform. The platform was constructed of planks. From those days, the statement of political faith upon which a candidate stands – or falls – was called a “platform” and its various parts were known as “planks”.

Nice to see, most things have not changed. Except our planks now aren’t real, they’re particle board, little bits and peices of planks, glued together and pressed tight.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

The Deal: What Happens When One Posts on Two Hours Sleep

Posted by Mark on May 25, 2005

My 3rd grader and I were listening to Robert Byrd (D-WV) on the radio, and he asked me why the Senator was going on and on for so long. I replied that some people can talk for hours and hours and never really say anything. He said he couldn’t understand how that could be, as when people talked they always said something. I smiled, and said “Son, you’ve never met a politician.” His mind went tilt at that point, and we began talking baseball, which is a far more important topic than politics anyway…sigh.

I’ve had some time to sleep on The Deal, and wish, as they say in Congress, to revise and extend my remarks:

I do think The Deal was a bad thing for Republicans. It would have been better to have ended the Filibuster. The use of the filibuster by the Democrats in such a systematic fashion needed to be stopped. Joe, I’m sure you know your statistic of 200 out of 210 judges approved is misleading to say the least. You know that Appellate judges, where it matters the most next to the Supreme Court, is much, much lower than your figure shows. It’s closer to 67%, the lowest percentage in modern history.

The vote to end the filibuster would have allowed votes on all the Judicial nominees. And yes Patricia, I do indeed want to see Conservatives in control of all four branches of government. See my reply to your comment on my previous post. Those votes may still happen, and then we’ll see if the Democrat seven can be trusted. We will also see if John McCain can be trusted. I would doubt the latter, even with several days of sleep….

Be that as it may, I do understand the desire to compromise on the part of Graham, DeWyne, and Warner. It’s hard to work in a place where there is constant conflict. Trouble is, their compromise didn’t stop anything. It simply delayed the inevitable. Does anyone really doubt that the battle will now be joined over the next Supreme Court nomination? Then what will the Republic 7 do? Or better yet, what will the Democrat 7 do?

We all know this fight comes down to Abortion in the end. I have no doubt that Bush will nominate pro-lifers to the upcoming Supreme Court vacancies. There’s no doubt that the Maine contingent and Chafee will oppose that. So it again comes down to the Democrat 7, and Graham, DeWyne, and Warner. We’ll see in the next few months if The Deal will last….I’m betting it won’t.

OpinionJournal has it just about right.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

The Deal: For Conservatives, A Synonym for Sellout

Posted by Mark on May 25, 2005

Been thinking all day about The Deal. I’ve worked hard to stay away from Talk Radio, and the opinion blogs, as I wanted to make up my own mind. (Okay, I admit to listening to about 30 minutes of Rush while taking my wife to the Doctor. But I had the volume low, and could only hear every other word because of my beloved’s coughing.) Having watched the news conference, read The Deal, and watched some of the Cable talking heads, most especially Senator Graham on CNN, here’s my take:

I’ve always had respect for Lindsay Graham (R-SC). He was by far the most articulate and logical of the ill-fated House members presenting the evidence in the impeachment “trial” of 1998. He has been one of the better representatives for Republicans on the Sunday Morning talk shows. I’ve always respected him, until yesterday.

I assumed supporting McCain in 2000 was simply an error in judgement. After yesterday, I know better. He let down his fellow Republicans, and followed McCain to the land of the RINOs. Hope he’s enjoying his six years in the Senate. He won’t have another term. South Carolina isn’t Arizona, and about as far from Maine as you can get and still be in the same nation. I’m not sure what he was thinking yesterday, but it sure wasn’t about the folks that put him in office.

I know some of the folks who visit Liberty won’t agree with this assessment, and in fact may not even understand what the fuss is about. I mean, we got 3 judges, didn’t we? Yes we did.. But I suspect conservatives lost control of the Senate yesterday, thanks in great measure to Lindsay Graham and Mike DeWine (R-OH). And quite honestly, both of them are naive if they think they can somehow pull the Constitutional option from the trashcan they placed it in yesterday. “Extraordinary Circumstances” is a slippery phrase. And for the Party that creatively defined words like “sex” and “is,” “Extraordinary Circumstances” leaves alot of room for maneuver. Enough room to drive an eighteen wheeler right over the coming Supreme Court nominations.

DeWine is up in 2006, and the seat may very well return to Democrat control thanks to his stance yesterday. Graham’ s got four more years, but South Carolinians have long memories. If you don’t believe it, just ask a native about Sherman. Umm, they don’t consider him quite the same war hero as folks here in the People’s Republic of Illinois.

I honestly think he’s followed John McCain right off the cliff. Maybe he thought he could be McCain’s running mate in ’08, but both of them have badly underestimated just how important the Judge issue is to the Republican base. I seem to remember McCain’s candidacy went down in flames in South Carolina in ’00. Apparently, Graham forgot that last night. Regardless, both he and DeWine will face big trouble in their next Senate race. I certainly wouldn’t vote for either of them now.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

I wrote the above paragraphs before checking the blogs, Rush (except for my 30 minute admisson above), Hugh Hewitt, etc. Nice to see I have some company. Here’s Hugh Hewitt’s take, which pretty much sums it up. It would appear the Not a Dime More campaign will have to continue for awhile.

Posted in War and Terror | Leave a Comment »