Dude I have posted the curiculem of that class already which you have read.
A.C.L.U. May Block Criticism by Its Board
by Jay on 05-24-06 @ 9:05 am Filed under ACLU, 1st Amendment, News
This is the kind of hypocrisy that Conservatives and most reasonable liberals can agree that the ACLU needs to some house cleaning on. Via NY Times….
The American Civil Liberties Union is weighing new standards that would discourage its board members from publicly criticizing the organization’s policies and internal administration.
“Where an individual director disagrees with a board position on matters of civil liberties policy, the director should refrain from publicly highlighting the fact of such disagreement,” the committee that compiled the standards wrote in its proposals.
“Directors should remember that there is always a material prospect that public airing of the disagreement will affect the A.C.L.U. adversely in terms of public support and fund-raising,” the proposals state.
Given the organization’s longtime commitment to defending free speech, some former board members were shocked by the proposals.
I would take a guess that there is some reason that those that are shocked are “former” board members for a reason. How many times have we heard the ACLU ask the government for transparency? Most people that believe in true free speech and the right to dissent expect the ACLU to hold itself to the same ideological standards that it asks of others.
Nat Hentoff, a writer and former A.C.L.U. board member, was incredulous. “You sure that didn’t come out of Dick Cheney’s office?” he asked.
“For the national board to consider promulgating a gag order on its members — I can’t think of anything more contrary to the reason the A.C.L.U. exists,” Mr. Hentoff added.
The proposals say that “a director may publicly disagree with an A.C.L.U. policy position, but may not criticize the A.C.L.U. board or staff.” But Wendy Kaminer, a board member and a public critic of some decisions made by the organization’s leadership, said that was a distinction without a difference.
“If you disagree with a policy position,” she said, “you are implicitly criticizing the judgment of whoever adopted the position, board or staff.”
Anthony D. Romero, the A.C.L.U.’s executive director, said that he had not yet read the proposals and that it would be premature to discuss them before the board reviews them at its June meeting.
Mr. Romero said it was not unusual for the A.C.L.U. to grapple with conflicting issues involving civil liberties. “Take hate speech,” he said. “While believing in free speech, we do not believe in or condone speech that attacks minorities.”
However, they have no problem if the hate speech is toward American military members at their funerals. It is hypocritical stances like this that brings about such infighting from the pure ideologues to free speech, and those that have their own agenda of only defending speech that they agree with. It sounds a lot like damage control to me, and while I think most conflicts within any organization should be given every effort to be resolved internally, to create a policy that essentially puts a gag order on any dissent within only casts more doubt that the ACLU stands by the principles in which it preaches. The “do as we say, not as we do” attitude would keep many of the ACLU’s members and the general public unaware of important issues in which they I would argue they have a right to know. When the light has been shined on the hypocritical stances within the ACLU, many members may not want the money they have been donating to support projects in which may be in conflict with their own ideological stances. I thought the ACLU supported watchdogs and whistle blowers. Obviously that philosphy only applies to leaking classified national security information, and not their own organization.
Many ACLU supporters are seeing through the hypocrisy.
But some former board members and A.C.L.U. supporters said the proposals were an effort to stifle dissent.
“It sets up a framework for punitive action,” said Muriel Morisey, a law professor at Temple University who served on the board for four years until 2004.
Susan Herman, a Brooklyn Law School professor who serves on the board, said board members and others were jumping to conclusions.
“No one is arguing that board members have no right to disagree or express their own point of view,” Ms. Herman said. “Many of us simply think that in exercising that right, board members should also consider their fiduciary duty to the A.C.L.U. and its process ideals.”
When the committee was formed last year, its mission was to set standards on when board members could be suspended or ousted.
The board had just rejected a proposal to remove Ms. Kaminer and Michael Meyers, another board member, because the two had publicly criticized Mr. Romero and the board for decisions that they contended violated A.C.L.U. principles and policies, including signing a grant agreement requiring the group to check its employees against government terrorist watch lists — a position it later reversed — and the use of sophisticated data-mining techniques to recruit members.
Mr. Meyers lost his bid for re-election to the board last year, but Ms. Kaminer has continued to speak out. Last month, she was quoted in The New York Sun as criticizing the group’s endorsement of legislation to regulate advertising done by counseling centers run by anti-abortion groups. The bill would prohibit such centers from running advertisements suggesting that they provide abortion services when they actually try to persuade women to continue their pregnancies.
Ms. Kaminer and another board member, John C. Brittain, charged that the proposal threatened free speech. “I find it quite appalling that the A.C.L.U. is actively supporting this,” Ms. Kaminer told The Sun.
There is much more internal fighting going on you can read about. Hopefully the ACLU can work this out in a way that upholds their professed principles that they demand from so many others. I’ve said before that if the ACLU can make some reforms that they have the potential to be an organization that is good for the country. Holding themselves to their own standards would be a great start.
Captain’s Quarters is on the same wavelength.
Even if no action is taken, the new instructions make a statement about the organization. The ACLU says by its consideration of this proposal that it cannot withstand dissent, an odd position for an organization that based its existence to protect dissent elsewhere. They seem to say that some dissent is tolerable and others are not, and that the highest authorities hold the privilege of deciding which is which. It’s interesting and terribly convenient that they would only apply that philosophy to themselves.
Bryan Preston:
If the ACLU were as transparent as it demands of everyone else, we could know with certainty whether CAIR funding is having an undue influence on the organization. Though the ACLU’s recent actions make such an investigation more of a confirmation than anything else.
http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2006/05/24/aclu-may-block-criticism-by-its-board/
ACLU Concerned Over Gideons
by Jay on 11-05-05 @ 6:53 pm Filed under Church And State, News
Rememember your parents talking about how times have changed? I’m only 28 but I’m starting to feel old. I’m starting to say things that my parents used to say. My, my, how times have changed.
When I was in the 8th grade, the Gideons came to our school with boxes full of tiny little pocket sized New Testaments. There was no requirement to take one, just take one if you wanted it. All voluntary, no problem. I remember taking two. That same day I got in a fight with someone, and I was inciting it. We had a high porch outside our gym, and one of the known bullies kept pushing me off. I was attempting the philosphy of “turn the other cheek”, and it was working. I kept going back to the porch, and saying, “that was fun, do it again.” Each time he pushed me harder, and was getting very aggrevated that I seemed to be enjoying it when he was trying to show he was more powerful than I was. We both got in trouble.
Back in those days they had a cut piece of wood called a paddle. Perhaps unbelivable to many of you, they would use this paddle on your behind as a means of discipline. As we waited for our punishment, I suddenly realized that I had two Gideon’s Bibles! An ephiphany began! If I could put the little books in my back pockets, perhaps I could cushion the pain of the paddling. I mentioned the idea to the bully. He thought it was ingenious! We became best friends right there, and throughout our highschool years. Though we have lost contact, I would still consider this guy as one of my best friends. So did the philosphy of “cover the other cheek” work? Well, of course not. The teacher was too smart for that.
Anyway….as my parents used to say, “times have changed.”
Two Gideons International representatives were in the Robert S. Payne Elementary School cafeteria Friday alongside a table of small red Bibles.
The two men had permission to be there from Lynchburg City Schools. Superintendent Paul McKendrick said city school policy requires students to give the Gideons representative a form signed by a parent before they can accept a Bible.
The executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, Kent Willis, said the practice merits a closer look. Source
Permission slips to recieve a little book. Whats so threatening about a little book? Something that each individual have a choice on reading or not. Something each individual has a choice on whether to belive as truth or not. The ACLU were concerned over the permission slip portion too, but for different reasons.
School division policy requires that parental permission forms to accept the text be sent home with students prior to the Gideons’ arrival, McKendrick said.
For Willis, that raises more concerns.
“The most important question here is what role does the school play in the religious activity?” Willis said.
“The reason courts have allowed schools to have Gideons come is that the school can claim to play a passive and neutral role. They’re not recruiting Gideons.
“But if a school goes so far as to send a note home, that seems to me to be a much more active role.”
I find this a very ironic position for the ACLU to take. The very reason the school even went through the effort of providing permission slips was probably out of fear they would get sued by the ACLU, or some other bloodthirsty liberal activist group.
My how times have changed. This school shouldn’t need permission slips of any kind according to the legislative judicial branch in the 9th District. They just ruled a blanket decision that parents have no right on what a public school can teach their children. In that particular case the school was teaching seven year old children about touching private parts, and sexual desires. No permission from parents required in this. The ACLU, no where to be found. Not a peep from them. But to hand out a tiny little New Testament, the ACLU are concerned.
Informing Parents of what goes on at school concerns the ACLU when it fits their agenda. The American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky has urged state school leaders to do a better job informing parents of their right to keep their child’s information away from military recruiters.
One father faced criminal charges after expressing his concern over his 5 year old son being taught gay tolerance. In another kindergarten class a teacher cenored a five year old’s drawing because it included a drawing of Jesus. In another school they were teaching children to be Muslims. The ACLU were nowhere to be found in any of these cases. But when it comes to tiny little books, the ACLU feel that liberty is threatened. My, how times have changed.
Apparantly this anti-Christian theme at schools extends to private dorm rooms too. Kit reports at the Blue State Conservative how A student at the University of Wisconsin in Eau Claire was told in July by the college that if he did not stop holding private Bible studies in the dorm room he called home, he would face disciplinary action.
http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2005/11/05/aclu-concerned-over-gideons/
ACLU Continues To Discredit Itself
by Jay on 07-05-05 @ 9:51 pm Filed under ACLU, War On Terror, Border Control/Homeland Security, Illegal Activities
Hat tip to Michelle Malkin
It seems the ACLU continues to discredit itself by fighting all efforts for the U.S. to secure its borders. teaming up with three other groups to monitor attempts by Minuteman Project-style groups to do in California what the Minute Men managed to do in Arizona. One of the organizations is the American Immigration Lawyers Association. This organization was named a key member of the Open Borders Lobby in the pamphlet The Open Borders Lobby and the Nation’s Security After 9/11. If that isn’t enough, they are also directed by approximately 100 associates who also serve as members of the pro-Communist National Lawyers Guild.
The second organization is the The San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association(”The Race Lawyers Association”). If the name isn’t enough to figure out what they are about take a look at their sister organizationMALDEF.
The third organization is quite interesting. The San Diego branch of the National Lawyers Guild: Michelle points out that:
The NLG was founded in 1936 by Communist Party USA (CPUSA) lawyers and liberal fellow-travelers. A watershed moment for the organization occurred in its third year, when its National Executive Board chose not to adopt an amendment to the NLG Constitution condemning dictatorship and supporting democracy - an amendment its Communist organizers called “divisive.” “The real aims of the National Lawyers Guild,” read a 1950 report by the House Committee on Un-American Activities, “as demonstrated conclusively by its activities, . . . are not specified in its constitution or statement of avowed purpose. In order to attract non-Communists to serve as a cover for its actual purpose as an appendage to the Communist Party, the National Lawyers Guild poses benevolently as ‘a professional organization which shall function as an effective social force in the service of the people.’”
Sounds a lot like the ACLU’s founding:
Its co-founder Roger Baldwin candidly stated, “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, the abolition of the properties class, and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal. It all sums up into one single purpose — the abolition of dog-eat-dog under which we live. I don’t regret being part of the communist tactic. I knew what I was doing. I was not an innocent liberal. I wanted what the communists wanted and I traveled the United Front road to get it.”
And if you still need a little more:
The head of the ACLU is also an adviser to the IFC and of course, ACLU is among the most important and dangerous members of the open borders combine, using its considerable resources in support of causes that will encourage illegal aliens to enter the US and facilitate their remaining here: granting them drivers’ licenses to illegal aliens, granting instate tuition to illegals, welfare and free health care etc. The ACLU has even opposed rules to speed the deportation of illegals convicted of violent felonies.
And here is an ironic twist to things. Want to know what happens when its members break rank?
The American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico suspended its Las Cruces chapter Monday after learning that a member of the group’s board was heading the formation of a Minuteman-style organization in New Mexico.
Gary Mitchell, a Ruidoso attorney and president of the ACLU board of directors, said the suspension of the southern chapter was a technical move to make sure the leader of the New Mexico Minutemen - a spinoff of the controversial civilian border patrol group the Minuteman Project - no longer had authority to act or speak on behalf of the ACLU.Source
Far-lefties please explain to me how the ACLU can support open borders, and defend terrorists
