Tea Party Movement Emerges as Major Force
- Thread starter Billnew
- Start date
mcswan
Regular Member
- Oct 18, 2007
- 894
- 117
- Faith
- Methodist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I, too, consider the ACLU to be a "dem" and "lib" organization, and yet have supported it over the years in spite of that.
My unhappiness with the ACLU, as well as other organizations that are ostensibly non-partiian such as SPLC and Common Cause (both of which I originally supported) act in a very partisan manner. They run to the barricades and act quickly and very publicly when defending cases that are seen as benefiting Dems/Libs, but stand on the sidelines or reluctantly defend behind the scenes in cases that are seen as benefiting Reps/Consv. They have stated policies of unbiased defense of constitutional principles but conduct their day by day operations very differently.
It's hard to have much respect for such organizations.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
P
Protocol11
Guest
Not for the dems in Washington. For them, their primary goal is shredding the document.
Upvote
0
No, that wasn't the best line from John Boehner, "we are not going to be any different than what we've been.
Upvote
0
mcswan
Regular Member
- Oct 18, 2007
- 894
- 117
- Faith
- Methodist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I'll give one example of these "non-partisan" organizations failing, very conspicuously, to defend constitutional rights: the case of the false accusations of rape against Duke University lacrosse players. As far as I remember none of the organizations I mentioned ever came forward to defend the civil rights of the Duke players. Yet you know as well as I that if the players had been black and the accuser white, the ACLU and SPLC would have trampled young children to death pushing their way to any camera they could find. The following is taken from an article written in December 2006:Where's the ACLU to Defend the Duke Lacrosse Players? - HUMAN EVENTS
"If ever there was a case screaming for the assistance of the ACLU on behalf of defendants suffering denial of their civil rights and the need to go after a prosecutor abusing his power, the Duke lacrosse case is it. Yet the ACLU remains silent."
"By now and for months, the prosecutor’s flouting of the most basic legal and civil rights procedures has become transparent and beyond question to all those following this case. The defendants have been accused by a plaintiff who misidentified them when given her chance during the police photo line-up. Worse, the DNA results of the sperm taken from the accuser do not match those of the boys she is accusing of rape. The ACLU is not moved."
I won't go into further such cases, but you can find many others, particularly cases where the ACLU will support Muslim groups involved in freedom of religion school policy disputes while doing exactly the opposite for Christian groups (Missouri, Michigan, California.) If you really want more examples I'll do the work to find the references, but I'm not eager to take much time away from my work.
Upvote
0
sinner/SAVED
homo unis libri / εραστής της φρόνησης
Two questions:
1. What rights of the Duke players were violated? I thought that they were acquitted of all charges.
2. Did they ask the ACLU for assistance? If they asked and were turned down you may have an argument, but if they didn't ask there is no reason for complaint.
1. What rights of the Duke players were violated? I thought that they were acquitted of all charges.
2. Did they ask the ACLU for assistance? If they asked and were turned down you may have an argument, but if they didn't ask there is no reason for complaint.
Upvote
0
Hmmm... Yes, that was a travesty of justice. I am unsure why you see it as a partisan issue though. You claim that "Yet you know as well as I that if the players had been black and the accuser white, the ACLU and SPLC would have trampled young children to death pushing their way to any camera they could find." I do not know that and I do not think that to be the case. As I recall there was an active investigation against the players that did not really involve any constitutional issues. What constitutional issue do you feel was at play in that case?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
mcswan
Regular Member
- Oct 18, 2007
- 894
- 117
- Faith
- Methodist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Opinions on the ACLU seem too entrenched for me to want to spend much more effort on this discas wussion, so I'll just leave you with an informed opinion from within the ACLU itself, Wendy Kaminer:
http://wendykaminer.com/aclu.html How The ACLU Lost It's Bearings/The American Liberal Liberties Union
Nicholas Stix, Uncensored: Former ACLU National Board Member, Wendy Kaminer, Joins Vast, Right-Wing Conspiracy
[FONT=Georgia,]
Say what you will about Wendy Kaminer, but she’s her own woman. And yet, she’s also a longtime woman of the Left.
Houston, we have a problem.
While one can argue about how much independence of spirit the Left could tolerate in the past, the answer regarding the present is, “None.”
Kaminer, a lawyer, social critic, and author of seven books, was from 1999-2006 a member of the ACLU’s national board, and is still a member of the ACLU of Massachusetts board.
In a 2007 Wall Street Journal op-ed, Kaminer recounted how the organization, whose reputation has long been based on its defenses of freedom of speech, had switched to supporting censorship, even of the legal variety, as long as it was imposed on conservative Christians, critics of homosexuality, and even critics of Islam. [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia,]In spite of the circumstances of its founding, and the bad it has done, the ACLU has in the past done some good. Over the past generation, however, its emphasis has increasingly belied its name, trading an emphasis on civil liberties for one on politically correct civil rights and the harassment of Christians in the public square, as the recently departed Richard John Neuhaus might have put it.
While some writers, such as Nat Hentoff, have tried to square the circle and reconcile the one thrust with the other, no can do. Civil liberties are about freedom from government coercion. Conversely, the civil rights movement was and is a blend of black racism and communism. There’s no room for liberty at that particular inn.[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia,]Was Kaminer writing about the ACLU or the SPLC? The criticisms could just as well apply to the latter, except that the SPLC does not even pay lip-service to civil liberties.
[/FONT]
http://wendykaminer.com/aclu.html How The ACLU Lost It's Bearings/The American Liberal Liberties Union
Nicholas Stix, Uncensored: Former ACLU National Board Member, Wendy Kaminer, Joins Vast, Right-Wing Conspiracy
[FONT=Georgia,]
Say what you will about Wendy Kaminer, but she’s her own woman. And yet, she’s also a longtime woman of the Left.
Houston, we have a problem.
While one can argue about how much independence of spirit the Left could tolerate in the past, the answer regarding the present is, “None.”
Kaminer, a lawyer, social critic, and author of seven books, was from 1999-2006 a member of the ACLU’s national board, and is still a member of the ACLU of Massachusetts board.
In a 2007 Wall Street Journal op-ed, Kaminer recounted how the organization, whose reputation has long been based on its defenses of freedom of speech, had switched to supporting censorship, even of the legal variety, as long as it was imposed on conservative Christians, critics of homosexuality, and even critics of Islam. [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia,]In spite of the circumstances of its founding, and the bad it has done, the ACLU has in the past done some good. Over the past generation, however, its emphasis has increasingly belied its name, trading an emphasis on civil liberties for one on politically correct civil rights and the harassment of Christians in the public square, as the recently departed Richard John Neuhaus might have put it.
While some writers, such as Nat Hentoff, have tried to square the circle and reconcile the one thrust with the other, no can do. Civil liberties are about freedom from government coercion. Conversely, the civil rights movement was and is a blend of black racism and communism. There’s no room for liberty at that particular inn.[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia,]Was Kaminer writing about the ACLU or the SPLC? The criticisms could just as well apply to the latter, except that the SPLC does not even pay lip-service to civil liberties.
[/FONT]
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Pommer
CoPacEtiC SkEpTic
- Sep 13, 2008
- 16,603
- 10,429
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Democrat
The ACLU seems to have filed a:
"BRIEF OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION AND THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MARYLAND AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS."
Who are the respondents?
ALBERT SNYDER,
Petitioner,
v.
FRED W. PHELPS SR., et al.,
Respondents.
Upvote
0
- Apr 23, 2004
- 21,246
- 1,234
- 58
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
I did say we'll see if these numbers are real.(You might have been talking about the post previous to yours.)
After NEocons, the right needed to rebrand it self.
Republicans=71%, but the other number is the important one,
1/3 of likely voters. 33%, Presidents have been elected with 45%.
Upvote
0
- Apr 23, 2004
- 21,246
- 1,234
- 58
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
They aren't terrifeid of it, they just don't like people to read it, because they can twist it to mean anything they want if no one has read it.I would prefer that he repeat word-for-word from a different document from 223 years ago, as we Tea Party members do:
That will terrify the Dems and Libs more than anything else.
No, just wish to edit and alter what is in it. Just change a word here, a meaning here, ignore sections that limit them(like they ignore federal laws they don't support), and never forget sections that they can exploit.
They wouldn't think of shredding it, it would cause a revolt. They just want to smudge a word or two here and there. Then alter a line around the smudge, then change the paragraph, because it doesn't fit what the smudge says.
Incriminalism, not revolution.
Upvote
0
Don't pretend that both sides don't occasionally find themselves shackled by what the constitution says. How many of the supposed "constitutional literalists" from the right opposed the Cordoba Mosque, conveniently forgetting what the constitution says about equal rights and freedom of religion?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
mcswan
Regular Member
- Oct 18, 2007
- 894
- 117
- Faith
- Methodist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
After all tis time and you STILL don't understand the issue? Are you reallly such a slow learner?
No one has ever argued that the owners of the property don't have the constitutional right to build. The issue has always been the appropriateness of the loction, and most of us still opose the building of the mosque on that basis.
Upvote
0
In other words, you have no sound basis to oppose the building. Islam did not bring down the towers, 2 planes did.
Upvote
0
How many times have people from the right said that the community centre "shouldn't be allowed"? If you're not a slow learner, you'll realise the implications of that statement. I'd put money on the fact that at least some of these people are the same ones who decried the health care bill as unconstitutional.
Upvote
0
craigerNY
I bring nothing to the table
These are the things that make me wonder what the ultimate destiny of the Tea Party will be. Right now the Tea Party folks are divided pretty much evenly. One half are remnants of the Neocons made up mainly of those aligned with Sarah Palin, they lend great importance to social issues and religion as well as interventionism and large military. The other camp is mainly made up of those aligned with Ron Paul, they lend great importance to state's rights, open markets and the ability to make Liberal personal choices. The bond is that both sides want less taxes and a more fiscally minded government. If the Tea Party loses the Palin half of the base they lose what it is to be a Republican in this day and age, if it loses the Paul half it loses those independents you speak of.
I don't know what will happen but it is not stable in it's current state. It can remain strong if it sidelines issues not related to taxes and fiscal policy.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
mcswan
Regular Member
- Oct 18, 2007
- 894
- 117
- Faith
- Methodist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I'm one of those people, and I hope this twisted logic isn't what passes as your constitutional scholarship.
The purpose of the constitution is to limit the power of government, not the rights of individuals. The constitution gives government NO AUTHORITY OR POWER to pass health care legislation, while the constitution GUARANTEES INDIVIDUALS THE RIGHT TO PROTEST!
Upvote
0
