ACLU: A Christmas Litigant Underfunded
Posted in Christmas, ACLU on December 31st, 2009 by Stanford Matthews 
You know it has been a good year despite all the bad news when there is a Christmas story as compelling as the classic It’s A Wonderful Life. You wouldn’t expect Christmas and the ACLU to be present in a positive Yuletide story but there it is in all its wonder. What a great way to round out this week’s theme of Christmas stories to counter the war on Christmas but a report that not only does the ACLU smell bad but their piggy bank (aka sugar daddy) is a bit light this year.
There’s no cause to gloat because ‘as we speak’ one can imagine there are many out there to take the place of the cash strapped benefactor the story identifies. Someone like George Soros or another fringe entity with more money than principles will undoubtedly rise to the dark side void left by another. But one can be pleased that one source for the war on Christmas has retreated if only temporarily.
If you haven’t already it may be time to consider the New Year. Reflection on the one passing may be a good place to start. Whether an introspective analysis or simply assembling plans for 2010 goals there is no shortage of items to consider. We can all do better. It’s a target rich environment filled with an array of items we can contribute are time and energy to even if much is in short supply these days.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
The left enjoys referring to the GOP as the ‘party of no.’ Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has press releases whining about the GOP holding up nominations or confirmations of President Obama. David Hamilton was confirmed for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals by the US Senate in a 70-29-1 vote. The ‘not voting’ member is a Republican. Ten of the 70 voting ‘aye’ for confirmation are Republicans. The occasional support for the GOP from Senator Lieberman was not available this time as he voted to confirm. Read the rest of this post and the links to consider the implications of this event. Do the math. Had the 11 members of the GOP voting ‘aye’ or not voting opposed the nomination what would the outcome have been?
Okay, now I’m confused. As the links and excerpts below indicate, it seems the ACLU is supporting religious freedom and at the same time ignoring their long standing effort to eliminate religion using their questionable arguments on separation of church and state. Gee, wouldn’t a police department be viewed by the ACLU as the ’state’? And wouldn’t wearing a beard for religious reasons while working as a police officer or detective violate the ACLU’s sensibilities on the issue of separation of church and state? And then there is the upcoming trial to determine if said officer will be allowed to wear a yarmulke during work and the ACLU attorney is optimistic that his client, the officer, will be victorious. Is it just me or is the ACLU changing their tune on things religious? Someone tell me what they’re up to.
It seems reasonable that part of why FISA was established includes providing another layer of oversight within government on sensitive issues. A way to increase the assurance that operations not lending themselves to wide open public availability are handled properly. As if it is not bad enough Congress and the White House are at odds over this task, another uninvited guest crashes the party.
Right away their personal opinion of opposing any surveillance methods is apparent in the second paragraph in the release above. The timing and the docs available could make you wonder if the ACLU and the Dems are working together. Oh, it’s probably just a simple coincidence. Both left, some left-left or far fringe left and we’re talking intelligence gathering here. Are they concerned about Americans or just illegals and terroritsts making phone calls to parties outside the US? Have to end this paragraph before it turns into a rant.
Another shot across the bow from a self-righteous collection of ‘activists’ and ‘faith-based’ organizations with a holier than thou attitude aimed at Mitt Romney. Do you detect some animosity? Yes you do. When a group or organization levels complaints about political candidates, the first inclination is to raise a question. Is the complaint truly a legitimate concern about the candidate’s views on an issue? Or is it simply targeting a candidate with unfavorable press from an opposition group or individual? The complaint registered which is the subject of this post is claimed to originate from anti-pornography groups. Since Brody from CBN has a lengthy article on the topic, it would appear the religious groups are concerned and wanting answers also. Is this merely opposition politics or a legitimate concern about an issue?
Apparently unsuccessful in squashing porn in the hotel industry for decades and ignoring the larger issues mentioned above, fifteen or more groups as well as the CBN are questioning Mitt Romney on what he did to help oppose porn. This line of questioning is absolutely ridiculous. It is nothing more than an extension of the equally ridiculous and continuous attacks of Mitt Romney’s chosen faith. For groups espousing religious and moral values this is a peculiar complaint which does not take into account the previous responses of Mitt Romney and his campaign or the typical functions of board members 
nor the individuals in positions of authority that would be directly responsible for the actions of corporations. Perhaps they should bone up on the chain of command within various business entities and who is really in charge and responsible in answering their complaints. If this is a fair example of how the anti-porn groups conduct themselves it is no wonder they have failed to eliminate porn in hotels. Stop blaming Mitt Romney for your failures.
Hillary Rodham Clinton has placed much faith in Bill Clinton to launch her campaign. All the talk of his apparent rock star status among the fringe left may be a chink in the armor. The fringe left is a volatile mixture known to turn on their own on a whim. Perhaps Hillary Rodham Clinton’s overconfidence comes from the steadfast support received to date from the far left liberal Democrats. As for Bill’s rock star status, at best it offers the risk of a new contestant on American Idol and at worst it is Milli Vanilli, the Dixie Chicks, Madonna and Cheryl Crow rolled into one.
This is why Blog @ MoreWhat.com opposes party politics. If your affiliation with party requires voting for a candidate with Hillary Rodham Clinton’s history, that single misguided loyalty supports our position against party politics. To argue that political reality establishes a need for ‘party voting’ equates the behavior with mob mentality. It is the kind of thinking that results in political deals between opposing ideologies that rarely solves anything. An example would be vote trading in Congress. As in I’ll vote for your bill if you vote for mine. Or loading bad bills with even worse amendments and pork to either defeat the measure or get perks for passing it. How can we expect any good out of a legislative body that permits this behavior and works to justify it?
Why do some people believe that every person who enters this country illegally has this country’s best interests in mind? How stupid is that? It is equally stupid to think that this is not what open borders proponents think. Why? For all the wailing and gnashing of teeth over the assumed plight of illegal immigrants, those who favor amnesty and other perks for illegals continue to claim they are only looking for a better life. And how did they come to that conclusion?
The proponents of open and uncontrolled borders continue to describe this country as a nation of immigrants as a central argument for their position. Does that mean those who immigrated here before, legally, and those who were born here from legal immigrants, are required to surrender the protection and welfare of this nation to uncontrolled borders and immigration?
Slow, methodical, managed and controlled immigration is necessary for protecting and securing this country while honoring the time tested tradition of an immigrant nation. Abandoning those safeguards because some criticize the time required to enter this country legally, is all the evidence you should need to understand the fallacy of the open borders crowd. Protecting this country trumps the interest of anyone wanting to enter this country. Saying immigrants have rights greater than the need to protect this country is more evidence to deny entry. Entering this country is a privilege not a right. To demand entry as a right is the strongest reason to deny entry because the entrant or applicant has put their own interests above that of this country.
This misadventure by the UN should be of concern to all American citizens of the legal variety. For now, gone are the days when simply using the word American implied one was a legal citizen of the United States. Thanks to the United States representatives to the UN who have publicly pushed for human rights initiatives in other countries, the shoe will go on the other foot. Under normal circumstances that would be understandable. But when is the last time you remember any country successfully solving human rights violations after intervention by the UN? So while the others skate on their responsibilities, America will be subjected to who knows what by the political dance from others at the UN.
The recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Gonzales v Carhart, a press release by the ACLU and actions by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and others have presented a reason for this writer to reconsider a position of favoring what may be called a pro-choice stance on abortion.
WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union today expressed its strong support for the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) introduced by Senator Barbara Boxer (D - CA) and Representative Jerrold Nadler (D - NY). This legislation would preserve women’s health and reproductive rights by protecting their right to privacy and ability to make their own reproductive choices.
