On The Couch With Stop The ACLU, Slow It Down Or Change Direction- You Decide.
John, author of Stop The ACLU has some interesting ideas on civil liberties and political ideologies (we suggest you read this post. It is an interesting look at some of those who fund- or used to fund- the ACLU).
We decided to interview him last week because we find ourselves in agreement with him on some matters, uneasy on others and disagree completely on yet other ideas. That fascinated us- that in a free society, so much is open to interpretation- that is, we can decide for ourselves the depths of our freedoms. In many other societies, what and what is not permitted, and when in doubt, assume it is not permitted. In what is his perhaps his most interesting response, John says that civil rights are not a matter of interpretation of the Right or Left- they are civil rights. That may be, but it sure isn't played out that way, has it?
What motivated you to take on the ACLU?
I have only recently been politcally active. I watched every Christmas season however as the ACLU would attack nativity scenes. This angered me. I do not believe that being offended is something someone should sue about. Later, Bill O'Reilly would get me fired up about them. During the election cycle I joined freerepublic.com and saw the constant hypocrisy of the ACLU, and just how bias and anti-moral they were. I saw many people angry, and no one knew what to do. I got tired of being angry and doing nothing, so I gathered a few likeminded people and we started this grassroots effort. The idea was originally to create commercials exposing the ACLU. We found this would be costly, so our store was actually created before the blog. The blog was a later idea.
Is there anything that you find yourself in agreement with theACLU?
Sure. I agree with them in principle. I'm not anti-civil rights! They did a lot of good in the 60's and 70's for the civil rights movements, but every good thing they have done in the past is completely erased in mind when compared to what they do today. They are a good idea gone bad. Anything taken to the extreme can get this way. Freedom is best maintained through a balance between individual rights and social order. The ACLU takes no account for social order. This attitude toward liberty would eventually assure the triumph of the state over the mediating institutions of society, thus reducing the prospects of liberty itself. The very thing the ACLU claims to protect.
Do you differentiate between the goals and objectives of the ACLU and the agenda of the ACLU?
Ha! This kinda feels like a loaded question. If we are talking about their "stated" goals on their website, then yes, I differentiate. Their agenda is very different than the deceptive language they camoflauge it in. If we are speaking of their actual goals, then no, their is no difference between a goal, agenda, and an objective. Many people will admit that the ACLU goes too far, but will claim they used to be a good organization. This is not entirely true. They were instrumental in the civil rights movement, a time when under much pressure of the FBI they had gotten rid of the communists in their ranks. They later readmitted them. As for their original founding goals and agenda....their founder Roger Baldwin stated the goal. "I have been to Europe several times, mostly in connection with international radical activities…and have traveled in the United States to areas of conflict over workers rights to strike and organize. My chief aversion is the system of greed, private profit, privilege and violence which makes up the control of the world today, and which has brought it to the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and unemployment… Therefore, I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself…I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal". Perhaps they have changed since then, but a close look at their activities leads me to think this is still their objective. Perhaps it is just their absolutist philosphy of liberty that takes no account of consequence, and just blindly follows an ideology. Either way, they are dangerous to our society.
Is there room for the ACLU in the politcal landscape?
Of course. Just as there is room in the political landscape to oppose their views. Just as many on the left will point out, they very well might defend my right to speak against them. However, their ideaolgies are blindly being followed to the point that it is dangerous to America. T he United States Congress, roughly thirty years ago, passed a provision in United States Code section 1988 that requires taxpayers to pay attorneys in civil rights cases. This was intended as a good thing for those too poor to defend themselves. The ACLU has turned this on its head. It now uses this to get paid by the government to threaten small schools that can not afford to defend theirself against the powerful ACLU bully. There is however legislation introduced to the House, that I would like to encourage everyone to support. This would ammend the provision mentioned to not pay in "establishment clause" cases. These people would still be able to sue in these cases, but our tax money would not pay for it. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.02679:
The ACLU bypasses the democratic process by taking its issues to the most undemocratic branch of our government and force us to bend to its will. It should not get our tax money for its agenda, which includes many things that should be left to the States to decide, such as legalized prostitution, and legalized drugs. They also split their organization into two so they can lobby Congress. There may be room for them in the political landscape, but they should not be using my money for an agenda I disagree with. They have too much power. If they did what they stated, and defended the Constitution instead of a partisan agends, then I would feel differently.
Besides the ACLU, are there any civil rights organizations you approve of? Any on the Left?
Quite a few. I give money to alliancedefensefund.org and aclj.org.
There are several others doing the job the ACLU should be doing. civilrightsunion.org, landmarklegal.org, naacd.com, becketfund.org, lc.org, thomasmore.org.
On the left? See it shouldn't be that way. Civil rights should be civil rights.
What current civil rights issue, in your opinion, is the most pressing?
The most pressing is the supression of religious expression, especially that of Christianity in public. There are several pressing issues though. Another is the right of people to be secure. It seems the ACLU had rather protect Americans from nonexistent threats to their liberty at the expense of protecting them from real threats to their safety. One issue where I thought the ACLU would step in on the right side of things, but so far have been silent is our right to private property in the recent Immenent Domain Case. And another one is States Rights. " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." It seems this right has been handed over to the Judicial Branch.
The UK has a wide network of surveillance cameras. How do you feel about that?
I'm all for it! It is an issue of safety. It does not impose on privacy. No one should expect privacy in public anyway.
What is your opinion of a national DNA database? Would that help to solve crime or help find missing children?
It probably would help solve crime and help find missing children, but I don't think I would support this. I think that is quite intrusive, and I wouldn't trust the government with that kind of information. Perhaps if it were a voluntary thing. And perhaps those convicted of felonies, and attrocities such as child molesters should have that kind of information stored somewhere. Maybe the state department of corrections upon release.
How do we keep the doctrine of separation of Church and State, and at the same time, not restrict any religious expression? Should there be some restriction of religious expression? Do we tolerate religious hatred in the public square, as they have in the UK?
First of all, there is no such thing as Separation of Church and State. That is a misconception created by the leftist wishing to remove religion from public and private life. The United States Constitution only addresses the subject in the Establishment Clause in which it states that Congress cannot establish a national religion through legislation. Congress shall make no laws it says. I mentioned before that one pressing issue is the supression of States rights. The federal government is too big. Whether or not a State government expresses religion should be left up to the "people" of that State. It isn't just about religious expression, but also about our history. Regardless of what you believe in, we were founded by those that believed in a Creator. In the Declaration of Independence it states that our rights were given by the creator. If you take God out of the government, you hand the power to the government to be able to give and take your liberties. As far as restrictions on religious expression and hate speech...there should be limits to everything even rights. This is a balance the ACLU doesn't understand. In order to keep our liberty, we must practice our rights with responsibility. You always hear about rights, we don't hear enough about responsibilities. If we are to speak about hate speech like many on the left whine about, it should definitley include hatred for America speech, and terrorist sympathy. There is a such thing as treason.
What do we need to do, in terms of civil liberties, to win the war on terror?
For one thing we need to focus on the civil liberties granted to American citizens through the Constitution. We need to realize that these rights do not extend to those here illegally, or to the terrorists we capture on the battle field. The ACLU should concentrate on Americans, and not on illegal immigrants, and detainees. We should concentrate on the real threats to our liberty.
We decided to interview him last week because we find ourselves in agreement with him on some matters, uneasy on others and disagree completely on yet other ideas. That fascinated us- that in a free society, so much is open to interpretation- that is, we can decide for ourselves the depths of our freedoms. In many other societies, what and what is not permitted, and when in doubt, assume it is not permitted. In what is his perhaps his most interesting response, John says that civil rights are not a matter of interpretation of the Right or Left- they are civil rights. That may be, but it sure isn't played out that way, has it?
What motivated you to take on the ACLU?
I have only recently been politcally active. I watched every Christmas season however as the ACLU would attack nativity scenes. This angered me. I do not believe that being offended is something someone should sue about. Later, Bill O'Reilly would get me fired up about them. During the election cycle I joined freerepublic.com and saw the constant hypocrisy of the ACLU, and just how bias and anti-moral they were. I saw many people angry, and no one knew what to do. I got tired of being angry and doing nothing, so I gathered a few likeminded people and we started this grassroots effort. The idea was originally to create commercials exposing the ACLU. We found this would be costly, so our store was actually created before the blog. The blog was a later idea.
Is there anything that you find yourself in agreement with theACLU?
Sure. I agree with them in principle. I'm not anti-civil rights! They did a lot of good in the 60's and 70's for the civil rights movements, but every good thing they have done in the past is completely erased in mind when compared to what they do today. They are a good idea gone bad. Anything taken to the extreme can get this way. Freedom is best maintained through a balance between individual rights and social order. The ACLU takes no account for social order. This attitude toward liberty would eventually assure the triumph of the state over the mediating institutions of society, thus reducing the prospects of liberty itself. The very thing the ACLU claims to protect.
Do you differentiate between the goals and objectives of the ACLU and the agenda of the ACLU?
Ha! This kinda feels like a loaded question. If we are talking about their "stated" goals on their website, then yes, I differentiate. Their agenda is very different than the deceptive language they camoflauge it in. If we are speaking of their actual goals, then no, their is no difference between a goal, agenda, and an objective. Many people will admit that the ACLU goes too far, but will claim they used to be a good organization. This is not entirely true. They were instrumental in the civil rights movement, a time when under much pressure of the FBI they had gotten rid of the communists in their ranks. They later readmitted them. As for their original founding goals and agenda....their founder Roger Baldwin stated the goal. "I have been to Europe several times, mostly in connection with international radical activities…and have traveled in the United States to areas of conflict over workers rights to strike and organize. My chief aversion is the system of greed, private profit, privilege and violence which makes up the control of the world today, and which has brought it to the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and unemployment… Therefore, I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself…I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal". Perhaps they have changed since then, but a close look at their activities leads me to think this is still their objective. Perhaps it is just their absolutist philosphy of liberty that takes no account of consequence, and just blindly follows an ideology. Either way, they are dangerous to our society.
Is there room for the ACLU in the politcal landscape?
Of course. Just as there is room in the political landscape to oppose their views. Just as many on the left will point out, they very well might defend my right to speak against them. However, their ideaolgies are blindly being followed to the point that it is dangerous to America. T he United States Congress, roughly thirty years ago, passed a provision in United States Code section 1988 that requires taxpayers to pay attorneys in civil rights cases. This was intended as a good thing for those too poor to defend themselves. The ACLU has turned this on its head. It now uses this to get paid by the government to threaten small schools that can not afford to defend theirself against the powerful ACLU bully. There is however legislation introduced to the House, that I would like to encourage everyone to support. This would ammend the provision mentioned to not pay in "establishment clause" cases. These people would still be able to sue in these cases, but our tax money would not pay for it. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.02679:
The ACLU bypasses the democratic process by taking its issues to the most undemocratic branch of our government and force us to bend to its will. It should not get our tax money for its agenda, which includes many things that should be left to the States to decide, such as legalized prostitution, and legalized drugs. They also split their organization into two so they can lobby Congress. There may be room for them in the political landscape, but they should not be using my money for an agenda I disagree with. They have too much power. If they did what they stated, and defended the Constitution instead of a partisan agends, then I would feel differently.
Besides the ACLU, are there any civil rights organizations you approve of? Any on the Left?
Quite a few. I give money to alliancedefensefund.org and aclj.org.
There are several others doing the job the ACLU should be doing. civilrightsunion.org, landmarklegal.org, naacd.com, becketfund.org, lc.org, thomasmore.org.
On the left? See it shouldn't be that way. Civil rights should be civil rights.
What current civil rights issue, in your opinion, is the most pressing?
The most pressing is the supression of religious expression, especially that of Christianity in public. There are several pressing issues though. Another is the right of people to be secure. It seems the ACLU had rather protect Americans from nonexistent threats to their liberty at the expense of protecting them from real threats to their safety. One issue where I thought the ACLU would step in on the right side of things, but so far have been silent is our right to private property in the recent Immenent Domain Case. And another one is States Rights. " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." It seems this right has been handed over to the Judicial Branch.
The UK has a wide network of surveillance cameras. How do you feel about that?
I'm all for it! It is an issue of safety. It does not impose on privacy. No one should expect privacy in public anyway.
What is your opinion of a national DNA database? Would that help to solve crime or help find missing children?
It probably would help solve crime and help find missing children, but I don't think I would support this. I think that is quite intrusive, and I wouldn't trust the government with that kind of information. Perhaps if it were a voluntary thing. And perhaps those convicted of felonies, and attrocities such as child molesters should have that kind of information stored somewhere. Maybe the state department of corrections upon release.
How do we keep the doctrine of separation of Church and State, and at the same time, not restrict any religious expression? Should there be some restriction of religious expression? Do we tolerate religious hatred in the public square, as they have in the UK?
First of all, there is no such thing as Separation of Church and State. That is a misconception created by the leftist wishing to remove religion from public and private life. The United States Constitution only addresses the subject in the Establishment Clause in which it states that Congress cannot establish a national religion through legislation. Congress shall make no laws it says. I mentioned before that one pressing issue is the supression of States rights. The federal government is too big. Whether or not a State government expresses religion should be left up to the "people" of that State. It isn't just about religious expression, but also about our history. Regardless of what you believe in, we were founded by those that believed in a Creator. In the Declaration of Independence it states that our rights were given by the creator. If you take God out of the government, you hand the power to the government to be able to give and take your liberties. As far as restrictions on religious expression and hate speech...there should be limits to everything even rights. This is a balance the ACLU doesn't understand. In order to keep our liberty, we must practice our rights with responsibility. You always hear about rights, we don't hear enough about responsibilities. If we are to speak about hate speech like many on the left whine about, it should definitley include hatred for America speech, and terrorist sympathy. There is a such thing as treason.
What do we need to do, in terms of civil liberties, to win the war on terror?
For one thing we need to focus on the civil liberties granted to American citizens through the Constitution. We need to realize that these rights do not extend to those here illegally, or to the terrorists we capture on the battle field. The ACLU should concentrate on Americans, and not on illegal immigrants, and detainees. We should concentrate on the real threats to our liberty.
<< Home