Stop the ACLU blogburst: The ACLU vs. America — The Numbers Don’t Lie
Crossposted from Stop the ACLU
The ACLU thinks that parents have no right to know if their pregnant underage daughter is seeking an abortion.
vs. America
80% of Americans think that parents have the right to know if their minor daughters are seeking an abortion. (CBS News Poll July 13-14, 2005)
The ACLU believes anyone, for any reason at any time should be allowed to abort a child.
vs. America
75% of Americans believe that there should at least be some restrictions on abortion. (CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll June 24-26, 2005)
The ACLU opposes abstinence education.
vs. America
96% of American parents with children under 17 want their kids taught that abstinence is the best approach to sex.
93% of American parents with children under 17 want their kids taught that having sex leads to disease and pregnancy.
85 % of American parents with children under 17 want abstinence to be taught with at least equal emphasis as contraception receives.
79% of American parents with children under 17 want their kids taught that teen sex leads to harmful psychological and physical effects. (http://www.heritage.org/research/welfare/bg1722.cfm)
The ACLU has fought to have constitutionally-sound displays that include the Ten Commandments removed from public property.
vs. America
75% of Americans believe that the Ten Commandments should be displayed on public property. (CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll June 24-26, 2005)
The ACLU is on record as supporting polygamy.
vs. America
92% of Americans think polygamy is morally repugnant. (The Gallup Poll May 5-7, 2003)
The ACLU has filed cases across the nation to redefine marriage against the repeatedly expressed will of the people and, now the overwhelming affirmation by even Left-leaning courts that the state is justified in retaining the definition of marriage. (Note: the ACLU got smoked in an attempt to prevent Tennesseans from even having the opportunity to express their will at the polls this year.)
vs. America
21 states have recently voted to protect marriage by an average of 70%: Alaska 68%, Hawaii 69%, Nebraska 70%, California 61%, Nevada 67%, Arkansas 75%, Georgia 76%, Kentucky 75%, Louisiana 78%, Michigan 59%, Mississippi 86%, Missouri 71%, Montana 67%, North Dakota 73%, Ohio 62%, Oklahoma 76%, Oregon 57%, Utah 66%, Kansas 70%; Alabama 81%; Texas 76%
The ACLU believes that children should be trapped in failed public schools, even inner-city children whose parents desperately want to escape the captivity of government education.
vs. America
69% of Americans believe that parents should be able to choose their child’s public school rather than being assigned based solely on residence location. (http://www.edreform.com/_upload/2005ncsw-poll.pdf).
63% of Americans believe that parents should be able to choose the best school for their child, whether public or private. (Zogby International Polling July 2002)
The ACLU opposes personally-initiated prayer in school and moments of silence as well as individual acknowledgement of religious beliefs at public events.
vs. America
83% of Americans think prayer should be permitted during school activities including graduation ceremonies. (Gallup/CNN/USA Today Poll June 25-27, 1999)
The ACLU has filed lawsuits and threatened cities and schools all across the country to prevent Christmas from being openly celebrated in public fora.
vs. America
96% of Americans celebrate Christmas
87% of Americans believe Christmas displays should be allowed on public property.
(FOX News Opinion Dynamics Poll December 3-4, 2003)
The ACLU has attacked Mt. Soledad memorial in San Diego since the the very beginning of Bush the Elder’s Administration because it includes a cross. This is just one of countless examples of the ACLU’s seek and destroy mission to eliminate all religious symbols from public grounds.
vs. America
76% of San Diegans voted to save the Mt. Soledad National War Memorial from the ACLU’s attack on behalf of a single atheist. That atheist, Jim McElroy was quoted as saying following the vote: “It still doesn’t mean a damn thing,” he said, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune. “Voters should have never voted on it. It’s a waste of taxpayers’ money.”
The reaction from ACLU-types will predictably be something like: “What is right and Constitutional is not always popular.” Easy answer: What the ACLU does is invent rights and distort the Constitution, which is why the ACLU is so UNpopular. The ACLU has used dubious interpretations of law NEVER imagined by our Founders with compliance from radical judges to push an agenda abhorrent to most Americans and indeed to the intent of the Constitution. Look no further than the ACLU’s pro bono defense of a website that advocates pedophilia and instructs its visitors in how to rape children and evade prosecution. So…the ACLU considers encouraging instruction on how to commit and get away with child rape a First Amendment right…does anyone believe that the Founders would agree? Therefore, can’t we conclude that if the ACLU is so wrong on this, that it may be wrong on many other things? Judge the evidence for yourself.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiller makes the point we should have.
A vast majority of the people of the United States are diametrically opposed to the ACLU and their pet agendas.
Yet we’re all being forced to fund them through our tax dollars.
Contact your Congress Critter and tell them to pass The Public Expression of Religion Act.
Sign Our Petition To Stop Taxpayer Funding of the ACLU
This has been a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay or Gribbit. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already on-board.
Posted by Danny Carlton at August 31, 2006 5:09 PM
A vast majority of america would give up their civil liberties for a candy bar. Thank God for the ACLU!
Judging by your post, you obviously haven't looked at these issues from the ACLU's perspective.
Thank God for institutions that study policy and it's effects on liberty. Without them, america would be following even more policies based on politics, not reality, and further eroding the civil rights of all.
Just one example, your first:
Sure, most americans want to know if their kids are having an abortion. If a teenage girl was raped by her father, should she have to get his permission to get an abortion? If a teenage girl has abusive parents, will she tell them she's pregnant? No. Will she seek an unsafe abortion? Yes. Has this resulted in dead teenagers? Absolutely. Are these scenarios rare? Unfortunately not.
But you lie. You say the ACLU argues that parents have no right to know about their child's abortion. That's just not true. Nowhere does the ACLU argue this. The ACLU's argument is that the teenager's right to choose overrides the parent's right to know.
another one: 75% of Americans believe that the Ten Commandments should be displayed on public property.
really? is that based on a constitutional argument, or emotions? What if I wanted to display the koran in public? I don't think they'd take too kindly to that. What's that? we are a christian nation? NO, we aren't. In fact, the constitution states that there shall be no religious test for office holders, nor shall congress enact any laws respecting the establishment of religion. What's that? Our laws are based on the ten commandments? no they arent. Only two of the commandments are laws: you can't kill and you can't steal. You needed to have those written on a tablet? Those are exclusive judeo-christian values? didn't think so.
I know most people don't understand what the arguments are, but there are these things called principles. They are core ideas that we don't compromise on. This country values individual rights and civil liberties, even if they don't always understand how they are being threatened. The ACLU will never compromise on these issues.
The government provides a right to free speech. This is not a privelege, it cannot be revoked, and it is critical for our democracy. Yes, when you allow for free speech, people will put awful things on the internet. The solution is to win the war of ideas, not silence people, and the reason should be abundantly clear to every american:
If you say the government should be able to stop people from saying certain things, then who gets to decide what is OK to say and what isn't? Ostensibly the government. Now who makes sure the government doesn't just censor inconvenient information? Where do you draw the line? What stops politicians from using that power to shut their critics up? Nothing. That's why we have this principle, and that's why we don't compromise it. It isn't the government's job to police thought or speech, because they have no right to decide what's appropriate and what isn't, and they certainly don't have the capacity to make those judgements fairly. "I know it when I see it" is NOT a valid legal standard.
Do you not understand these issues? Do you not care? Do you hear about the ACLU defending pedophiles and have an instant emotional reaction devoid of any thought regarding the principles behind the defense? Can you step back for just a second and examine these issues from a non-emotional standpoint?
For example, the question isn't whether a pedophile should be able to publish, it's whether the government should be able to decide who can publish and who can't. On that argument, you can't honestly say you think the government has a right to censor, unless you want to lump youself in with the authoritarian dictators of the world (and franch and german laws that prohibit Holocaust denials, etc... (which I also disagree with on the PRINCIPLE that the government cannot be the sole arbiter of history)).
An idiotic statement, which gives us warning of what's to come.
I have this inability to remove my brain from my head, so it's been somewhat difficult to see it from their perspective.
Did you copy that off a brochure somewhere?
Actually they are rare. What isn't rare are children preyed on by pedophiles, who then hide their crimes by forcing their victims to have abortions. All nicely hidden by moronic laws forced on us by the "Pedophiles for Choice" and their willing accomplices the Worshippers of Death (who call themselves "pro-choice" except they are anti-choice when it comes to doctors and pharmacists choosing to not perform abortions)
See Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood, 04-1144, also ACLU Applauds Decision Striking Down Colorado's Parental Notification for Abortion Act.
From NARAL (California)'s web site...
I could go on and on and on.
Also you don't seem to get that the post is a repost from another blog. The author is Glib Fortuna, one of the contributors at Stop the ACLU.
Does it matter? 75% said they think it should be allowed.
Why not. Has anyone argued against it? I wouldn't oppose it, unless it was being displayed while the Bible was being censored, which is exactly what's been happening in government schools in California. Those who've argued against have argued for fairness, not censorship. They want both sides presented. The ACLU, however, always argued for censorship when it comes to Christianity and the Bible.
You need to remind your Liberal friends of that, because they are the ones who keep kicking up a fuss and acting as if a candidate or nominee's Christian faith disqualifies him or her for the job.
But when the majority of the nation profess to be of a specific religion, then it would be safe to use that religion to describe that nation. When the laws of that nation are based in the teaching of that religion, that's another sure bet that that's what type of nation it was when those laws were put into effect.
The Bible doesn't consist of only the Ten Commandment. Yes, our nations laws were based on a Judeo-Christian philosophy, and it's structure was based on that. The Founding Father made that very clear.
There were (and still are in some places) laws against blasphemy, adultery, slander as well as the various Blue Laws throughout the nation. You should quit while you're behind. Again, it seems you are under the impression that the entire Bible consists of just the Ten Commandments, and apparently you've not even read those.
LOL, are you gullible. They do that all the time. Most of their efforts are in depriving people of one right or another for the cause of some "right" only they seem to understand. The want to let the KKK burn crosses in people lawns (a violation of the victim's right to privacy, property as well as a serious threat to their life) They want to allow women to murder their babies, thus depriving that child of it's right to life.
Actually it can be revoked under certain circumstances. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater, for instance. You don't have the freedom to tell the nation's enemies our military secrets. The Founding Father's never meant freedom of speech to allow for the promulgation of obscenities, especially using money taken at gun point from tax-payers.
Of course the ACLU wants to revoke the Freedom of speech for Christians in as many places as they can.
The internet, for the most part, is outside the control of the government, so using it is a red herring.
There's an old saying that your right to swing your arm ends at my nose. Actually it would end before there, because it would become harassment, long before it became assault. But your right to free speech does not include forcing people to listen to you, nor demanding that the government pay for it, nor saying false things that you know will cause harm to others. There are obvious limits to speech. You do not have the right to shout obscenities in my face. You do not have the right to be profane and obscene in a public setting when other's children are close.
What I find interesting is that Liberals are the very first to try to silence those the disagree with. Simply try to post something conservative at the Democrat Underground web site and see for yourself. Yet you guys are always trying to claim Conservatives don't respect free speech. If you want to read a thorough exchange of ideas on the internet, don't bother with liberal blogs or message boards. Find the Conservatives, because they will be the ones allowing those that oppose them to do so.
Obviously not the ACLU, but that's what they want.
Are you seriously that naive? There are three branches of government designed to ensure that one particular political faction could not gain a complete control. The only way to ensure opportunity for any particular faction is to allow it for all. What laws are put in to limit speech would be done by Congress (425 Congressmen and 100 Senators), then either signed or vetoed by the President, then, if opposed by anyone, determined Constitutional or not by the courts. That's quite a lengthy process involving people of diverse political persuasions. How could one, a dozen or even a hundred politicians stifle legitimate speech in such a process?
But the ACLU assumes that it is their job to police speech, fighting to censor those they dislike and to allow speech, regardless of who it harms, for those they like. Tell me who is more harmful a Christian praying in public or a terrorist calling to his leader in the Middle East to get orders? The ACLU wants to silence the former, but allow the latter complete freedom.
We should consider what pedophiles do to children dispassionately? Are you serious?
Yes it is whether a pedophile should be able to publish, because inevitably it will be something that harms a child. You ignore the safe guards placed on the process of law making, while also ignoring the real threats pedophiles pose to their victims. Ignorance piled on ignorance.
The government has always had the right to censor, and the ACLU has depended on that power in order to silence Christians and force the removal of religious symbols. You seem to have no problem with that, though. So I guess that makes you the "authoritarian dictator".