Protect and Defend

Welcome to my blog, Protect and Defend. You don’t have to understand me. You only have to agree with me. I can live with losing the good fight, but I can not live with not fighting that good fight at all. - Publius

Wednesday, August 16, 2006

The ACLU is against America

From the Washington Post:

Hispanic activists and the American Civil Liberties Union sued the city of Hazleton over its crackdown on illegal immigrants. Hazleton voted last month to fine landlords $1,000 for renting to illegal immigrants, deny business permits to companies that give them jobs, and make English the city’s official language (The Washington Post, August 16, 2006, A6).


Blogger Brooke said...

The ACLU opposes this because they KNOW that it is the one good way to deter illegal immigration!

I hope they get their @sses handed to them!

Thu Aug 17, 03:52:00 PM  
Blogger Bobkatt said...

The A(no)CLU true to it's communist roots has aways been about destroying traditional American values why would it change now? They will be very busy now because over 30 cities have illegal alien legislation in the works.
On an aside, I wish we could stop using the term "illegal immigration". This problem has nothing to do with immigration or immigrants. It is about invasion and the rampant disreguard for our laws. By letting the open border goons define the argument we allow them to interject "racism" and "anti-immigrant" to the conversation. We need to reword it to "illegal alien" or "illegal invasion"

Fri Aug 18, 04:24:00 PM  
Blogger quakerdave said...

Got my membership card right here. Surprised?

Fri Aug 18, 10:44:00 PM  
Blogger quakerdave said...

They're not against America. They're against YOUR version of America.

Fri Aug 18, 10:49:00 PM  
Blogger Wadical said...

What's the "other" version of America, there Quake?

Fri Aug 18, 11:08:00 PM  
Blogger Publius said...

QD, there is nothing about this legislation that can even be considered a violation of the laws. The laws enacted in Hazleton do not discriminate against American citizens, or those who are here on a legal visa. I guess it really does come down to which version of America you want, either one where we are safe and those within our borders have to live under our laws, or a version of American that the ACLU wants, some sort of secular, European, Libertarian, Pseudo-Utopia.
It ALWAYS pisses me off that anytime I hear about a good piece of legislation or laws passed by our politicians that it is almost a guarantee that the ACLU wants to come in and change that law. I have gone down the list of ACLU activities on this site before, using information on the ACLU website, and I am convinced that the ACLU wants to destroy America. Evil is not the word here, but I am not sure what the word is.

Sat Aug 19, 01:12:00 AM  
Blogger quakerdave said...

Well, there's no guarantee that the law will be changed. The lawsuit will only test its constitutuonality. What's wrong with that? Why not see if it reall is a fair and just and "legal" law, under the constitution we all claim to love and hold so dear? What is there to be AFRAID of?

The ACLU has taken cases that even I don't want my dues money going to support. I don't want them defending nazis, or kiddie porn addicts, or the nutjobs who yell nonsense at the funerals of our war dead. BUT when the regime comes knocking down the doors of pacifists and peacemongers, as they did during both world wars, I want someone there to speak for me, no matter how unpopular my position might be at the time.

Wadical: A world where there are no constitutional guarantees of equal protection, etc., where lawyers don't have the right to test a law's constitutionality in court. I'll keep my rights, thanks. I'm still using them.

Sat Aug 19, 11:23:00 AM  
Blogger Wadical said...

Then where are they, Dave? What are your "dues" paying for?? Why aren't they "speaking for you"? Or are they? Because I see them defending kiddie porn and Nazis. I don't see them defending MY constitutional rights to keep and bear arms, or MY constitutional right to freedom of speech. I see them defending only the "constitutional rights" of those people who choose to speak what they endorse. I don't see them defending MY constitutional right to freedom of religion. I only see them defending those who wish to keep me silent about my religion. The ACLU has a communist agenda. They protect the civil liberties of no one. Keep paying yer dues, Quake. If you get to keep those rights you speak of, it won't be because of anything the ACLU has done.

Sun Aug 20, 01:39:00 AM  
Blogger Publius said...

My problem with the ACLU is that they are not the “Defenders of Freedom” that they proclaim to be. From a previous post I made on here in April:

excerpts from
“The First Amendment exists precisely to protect the most offensive and controversial speech from government suppression.”
“Today, in some industries, taking a drug test is as routine as filling out a job application. In fact, workplace drug testing is up 277 percent from 1987 - despite the fact that random drug testing is unfair, often inaccurate and unproven as a means of stopping drug use. But because there are few laws protecting our privacy in the workplace, millions of American workers are tested yearly - even though they aren't suspected of drug use. Employers have the right to expect workers not to be high or drunk on the job. But they shouldn't have the right to require employees to prove their innocence by taking a drug test. That's not how America should work.”
“The American Civil Liberties Union and the New York Civil Liberties Union today released the first official U.S. government authentication of images of detainee abuse by U.S. forces at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. The Department of Defense was forced to turn over the information as well as one additional image as a result of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the ACLU in 2003.”

I don’t think the First Amendment exists to protect the most offensive and controversial speech from suppression. The mere existence of “broadcast standards” means that the government does not allow people to say or do anything on TV or radio. Even in Europe, they don’t put porn on during the middle of the day. Pornography is free speech, curse words are free speech, but we don’t let people use them on TV or on the radio, so we don’t have some Utopian Free Speech Amendment where anything and everything goes, nor should we.
I don’t know how anyone can be against drug testing. It is bad enough we have to worry about terrorists on a plane; I don’t want to worry if my pilot is a drunk or a coke head too.
And there was absolutely no reason to release the Abu Ghraib photos, and by them being released it only stirred up hatred for the US in Arab countries and put US Soldiers in additional danger.
I could do more research and find more, and maybe I could explain to you QD why and how the ACLU even with your viewpoint and ideology does more harm then good. Personally, I find no redeeming quality or worthwhile activity that they participate in, but I think you should really look closer to decide how much “work” they do that goes against your values as well.

Sun Aug 20, 03:13:00 AM  
Blogger quakerdave said...

Most Christians who are confident in their faith do not need their rights "protected", in terms of what the ACLU does, bcause, as the dominant religion, Christianity isn't really in any danger around here. As an example of what I mean (before you go nuts), there's the phony-baloney "war on Christmas" that Faux News is so fond of promoting every December. Drive around your town during the holiday season. Every church of every denomination that wants to puts out a Nativity scene. No one stops them. It's their right. But no one - especially non-Chrisitans - should have to have their tax dollars PAYING for a Nativity scene ONE PUBLIC PROPERTY.

As a member of a faith whose followers have been persecuted throughout its existence - including during the recent months where the FBI has been attending Quaker Meetings (worship services, mind you) and labeling peace workers as "suspicious persons" and collecting dossiers on them - I like having these folks around. Sorry if that offends you. And no, I don't always like all the cases they take. I'm sure you belong to organizations where you don't necessarily support every item in their platform. Or do you?

And I'll ask again: Does the ACLU always win? No. Many times, they don't. But maybe when they do win, it's because the laws that they are challenging are BAD LAWS, which can't pass Constitutional muster. The recent anti-immigrant laws passed here in New Jersey, in Riverside, for example, will be challenged (not sure if the ACLU is involved there) and those laws will be found to be unConstitutional because only the federal government has juristiction when it comes to immigration laws. It's about who has STANDING in passing rhese laws. You may think this is the best thing since individually-wrapped cheese slices, but if it is unConstitutional, it should be struck down.

I thought conservatives supported the Constitution.

I had to submit to a drug test to get my job teaching in a public school. I'll piss in a cup tomorrow if I have to. As far as what private employers do, isn't it up to them? I haven't made up my mind on this, just asking.

And the photos of Abu Ghraib did not stir up hatred against America. The people who did those things to those prisoners and who took those pictures, their commanding officers, and those who created an atmosphere wherein those kinds of actions would be condoned if not actively encouraged are responsible. If the truth hurts, blame the perpetrators. Those people are war criminals.

Sun Aug 20, 08:13:00 PM  
Blogger Brooke said...

QD, there is a difference between protecting rights and going out of one's way to homoginize America into a big lump of flavorless tofu.

Perhaps the ACLU started out as a civil liberties right's group, but they have evolved into something else. They attack the rights of one group to protect others.

In the case of this post, the ACLU is basically defending illegals. It isn't as if Jose, the American citizen, has been discriminated against. Jose, the Mexican national has been told that local businesses and landowners will not be permitted to knowingly contribute to a criminal action. I fail to see how THAT is any of the ACLU's business.

As for you having a membership card... Not really surprised, LOL! ;)

Mon Aug 21, 03:30:00 PM  
Blogger Publius said...

QD, the problem isn’t that the ACLU doesn’t always win, the problem is that they have the financial backing from their members that bring all these cases to trial. You talk about the tax payer money that will go to pay for nativity scenes on public property, well how much money is the ACLU’s court case against the town of Hazelton going to cost? How many days, weeks, or months, will this case tie up the courts that are already so backlogged with other frivolous ACLU lawsuits? To me the ACLU is like a secular, liberal Gestapo that scares government, schools, and individuals into inaction for fear of being sued.

Mon Aug 21, 10:57:00 PM  
Blogger quakerdave said...

... or keeps them on their toes so they don't try to pass laws that are unConstitutional.

Mon Aug 21, 11:52:00 PM  
Blogger quakerdave said...

I love that "Communist roots," stuff, too.

It's so 1980.

Mon Aug 21, 11:53:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home