I picked up the following from the local Houston Chronicle - seems a bit silly to me.

The government pulls people suspected of being here illegally out of airplane lines and then pays to detain, prosecute and deport them to the country they were headed to in the first place.

[…]

“What’s silly about this is that they are on their way home. They have gotten the message that they shouldn’t be here,” said Houston’s Federal Public Defender Marjorie Meyers. “It’s not cost-effective.”

Why not just close the door on them on them when they are gone? Save my tax Money. But the Houston U.S. Attorney Don Gabrielle seems to have another opinion:

Not true, says Houston’s U.S. Attorney Don DeGabrielle.

The people they are prosecuting are repeat violators of U.S. immigration laws and it’s not only necessary, but also efficient, to stop them and prosecute them, he said.

“We had already expended some time, effort and money before to institute deportation,” DeGabrielle said.

To allow them to come back into the country without proper permission and then just let them leave would minimize what the government is trying to accomplish, he said.

“We feel it’s definitely worth the resources to hold these people accountable,” DeGabrielle said.

I can, to some extent, understand the point of view. Yet I would still prefer to see my tax money spent keeping them out in the first place. The only potentially positive note is that entering illegally is a felony, and will stop them from every getting permission to immigrate here to the US.

Also Reporting:
Wizbang

Cross Posted from Stop The ACLU: There is no doubt that a certain amount of transparency is essential for a modern democracy to function honestly. However, taken to the extreme, complete transparency would effectively make our National Security impotent and threaten the ability of the democracy to secure its very existence. There is a line that must be carefully walked. We must maintain common sense, especially in times that enemies threaten our very existence. We can not be so transparent that our enemies can see through us, and know our techniques and plans to fight them and protect ourselves against them. We should never cede our security to exist over to a utopian ideological dream of a completely transparent government. It is also important to have government watchdogs keeping an eye on government from abusing and overclassifying information that the public has a right to know. The danger lies in allowing too much liberty, especially to absolutist organizations like the ACLU, in that decision making process.

The Investor’s Business Daily bring up some very good points in reference to the recent backing down of the government in trying to obtain a classified document from the ACLU.

“The government blinked,” gloated ACLU executive director Anthony Romero.

Judge Rakoff is notoriously liberal, having declared the death penalty unconstitutional in 2002 (a ruling quickly overturned), and earlier this year forcing the Pentagon to make public thousands of pages of information on suspected terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay. So it’s understandable for prosecutors to not want to fight an unwinnable battle.

Are we nearing the day, however, when the ACLU has our legal system so wrapped around its finger that government secrets can no longer be kept from terrorists? Consider these points:

[WINDOWS-1252?]
• The ACLU’s Romero called the subpoena battle “a fight not over a document but over the principle that the government cannot and should not be allowed to intimidate and impede the work of human rights advocates like the ACLU who seek to expose government wrongdoing.”

But if leftist activist groups or journalists, rather than the freely-elected U.S. government, decide what is legitimately secret and what is “intimidation,” there’s little that will remain secret.

Indeed, the government did blink. However, they caved in because they had a losing legal argument, not because they have no right to supress secret information from activist groups and the public at large. Before we hand the decision making process of what should or shouldn’t be secret or in the public interest to extreme partisan organizations like the ACLU, we should really take a look at just how reckless they have been with such information in the past. Indeed, if we leave it to groups like the ACLU we might as well write the suicide note of our nation on the back of the Constitution.

There is probably no other issue as fragile to the preservation of our liberties than a careful balance between civil liberties and our national security. To its credit, the ACLU recognizes the danger if the scales are tipped too far to the side of national security, however it doesn’t seem to acknowledge the danger if the scales are reversed. So, let us take a look at some of the extreme examples where the ACLU’s absolutist views actually endanger our national security.

In particular let us look at their attitude towards the intelligence community and secret information in general.

When it comes to drawing the line between classified information and national security the ACLU’s record has never leaned toward the side of caution or national security. They consistently defend leakers as brave “whistleblowers.” Even after the NY Times leaked details about the vital NSA program, the ACLU wanted more to come out in the open. They have even defended leaks on vital programs like SWIFT, in which we track terror finances, where there was absolutely nothing that even suggested government wrongdoing. They have even fought for accused enemy prisoners to be allowed to see classified evidence against them. The fact that our enemies learn and adjust from such traitorous leaks never seems to phase them.

More Points from the Investor’s Business Daily:

The ACLU boasts that its legal efforts have made public “more than 100,000 pages of government documents” regarding the interrogation of suspected terrorists. It has posted many of these documents on its Web site in an effort to shut down the program.

But President Bush’s policy of tough interrogation has secured information that has foiled numerous terrorist plots, saving thousands of lives. They include jetliner hijacking schemes targeting buildings on both the East and West coasts, another targeting Heathrow Airport in London, plus plots to destroy ships in both the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, and Jose Padilla’s plan to blow up high-rise apartment buildings in the U.S.

Intelligence information key to preventing terrorist acts has also come from the president’s other homeland security policies, like the National Security Agency’s wiretapping program. But ACLU lawyers are aggressively trying to shut those efforts down in several jurisdictions.

So, let us take a look at the ACLU’s real attitude towards the intelligence community.

To the ACLU, CIA means “Controlling the Intelligence Agencies.” That’s the title they gave to Policy #117. But even that is an understatement of what this particular policy calls for. “Completely undermining the Intelligence Agencies” would be a more appropriate title. It starts out badly and then gets worse.

“Control of our government’s intelligence agencies demands an end to tolerance of “national security” as grounds for the slightest departure from the constitutional boundaries which limit government conduct in other areas.”

Of course, its been obvious for nearly 70 years that protecting America’s national security is certainly not something the ACLU favors.

Here are some of the specific controls called for in Policy #117:

Limit the CIA, under the new name of the Foreign Intelligence Agency, to collecting and evaluatiing foreign intelligence information. Abolish all covert operations.

Limit the FBI to criminal investigations by elimimnating all COINTEL-PRO-type activity and all foreign and domestic intelligence investigations of groups or individuals unrelated to a specific criminal offense.

Prohibit entirely wiretaps, tapping of telecommunications and burglaries.

Restrict mail openings, mail covers, inspection of bank records, and inspection of telephone records by requiring a warrant issued on probable cause to believe a crime has been committed.

Prohibit all domestic intelligence and political information-gathering. Only investigations of crimes which have been, are being, or are about to be committed may be conducted.Twilight of Liberty

Two former members of the ACLU, Richard and Susan Vigilante, conducted a thorough analysis of the ACLU spelled out by the Union’s Center for National Security Studies.

They wrote:

The ACLU opposes, and has fought in either Congress or the courts, virtually all “covert action,” most “clandestine intelligence” gathering (i.e. spying), and in one case aid to an important U.S. ally with a poor human rights record. The net effect of these efforts has been to hinder U.S. opposition to Communist expansion. The ACLU may, at some point, have undertaken some major initiative that advanced U.S. interests and hindered Communist expansion, but our research never turned one up and no ACLU leader ever mentioned one to us.

In other words, strip the intelligence agencies useless.

One of the most revealing occurances towards the ACLU’s absolutist position on national security and its recent evolution can be seen in the action the board of directors took at its Oct 1989 meeting: It dropped section (a) from its policy, “Wartime Sedition Act.” Before, the ACLU held that it “would not participate (save for fundamental due process violations) in defense of any person believed to be “cooperating” with or acting on behalf of the enemy.” This policy was based on the recognition that “our own military enemies are now using techniques of propaganda which may involve an attempt to prevent the Bill of Rights to serve the enemy rather than the people of the United States.” In making its determination as to whether someone were cooperating with the enemy, “the Union will consider such matters as past activities and associations, sources of financial support, relations with enemy agents, the particular words and conduct involved, and all other relevant factors for informed judgement.”Twilight of Liberty

All of this is now omitted from the Official ACLU policy! This is not the kind of organization one should trust when it comes to secrets that need to be kept from enemy eyes.

The ACLU’s extremist position towards classified information can be seen in the very case they have been citing recently, the Petagon Papers.

The Pentagon Papers case shows how extremist the ACLU can be. In that suit, the Supreme Court ruled against the efforts of the Nixon Administration to suppress documents that were a veritable history of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. The ACLU, which filed an amicus, was happy with the immediate outcome-the newspapers could run copies of the Pentagon Papers-but was less than pleased with the high court’s reasoning. The Union was disturbed that the Supreme Court gave life to the idea that the president and the Congress had a right to restrain the press in bona fide instances of national security. It wanted nothing less than an absolute ban on prior restraint. Alexander Bickel, the brilliant constitutional scholar who argued the case against the government, criticized the unreasonableness of the ACLU stand. He accused the Union of being too ideological, labeling the absolutist position “foolish to the point of being almost unprofessional.” Like most students of the Constitution, Bickel was generally opposed to prior restraint but nonetheless conceded that there may be times when not to invoke prior restraint may be disastrous to the well-being of the republic. This is something the ACLU has not acknowledged and will not acknowledge.

In the recent case where the government folded in their attempt to get ’secret’ documents back from the ACLU their first mistake was in their approach. Their big mistake that they continue to make is in not aggressively investigating, prosecuting, and punishing the traitors that leak and publish the secret matters of national security for all, including our enemies, to know.

As the lawyers at Powerline have pointed out, in the case of the NSA leak, federal law is 18 U.S.C. § 798, a law that precisely prohibits leaks of the type of classified information disclosed in the story. Subsection (a) of the statute provides:

Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified [WINDOWS-1252?]information—
(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such [WINDOWS-1252?]processes—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Powerline further points out that in cases like that of the NSA leak, the Pentagon Paper case the ACLU loves to cite so much, only applies to prior restraint and not to punishment after the crime of publishing has been committed.

Indeed, in their concurring opinions, Justices Douglas and White cited and discussed 18 U.S.C. § 798 as the prototype of a law that could be enforced against a newspaper following publication of information falling within the ambit of the statute. Justice White noted, for example:

The Criminal Code contains numerous provisions potentially relevant to these cases. Section 797 makes it a crime to publish certain photographs or drawings of military installations. Section 798, also in precise language, proscribes knowing and willful publication of any classified information concerning the cryptographic systems or communication intelligence activities of the United States as well as any information obtained from communication intelligence operations. If any of the material here at issue is of this nature, the newspapers are presumably now on full notice of the position of the United States and must face the consequences if they publish. I would have no difficulty in sustaining convictions under these sections on facts that would not justify the intervention of equity and the imposition of a prior restraint.

Make sure to read the entire analysis.

When it comes to national security and classified information the ACLU has a long record of recklessness. When it comes to keeping our government from wrongdoing there are many suggestions that could be pursued to alleviate the problem. Allowing the press and the ACLU unfettered liberty to make the call on what can and can not be classified is a death wish. The government needs to step up and aggressively investigate and prosecute those that act, participate, aid and protect in the unlawful disclosure of our national security secrets.

The Investor’s Business Daily sums it all up well:

The civilized world simply can’t win against the forces of Islamo-fascism if we are deprived of the vital weapon of secrecy. Letting the ACLU force us to operate according to its radical ideology of “open government” would be like telegramming Hitler that we plan to invade Normandy.

Just wait until the ACLU gets a hold of this one.

From the Washington Times:

Sex offenders on probation or parole in Tennessee are banned from Halloween costume parties this year and aren’t even allowed to put up decorations, such as jack-o’-lanterns, that might attract youngsters.

The new state guidelines are meant to clarify policies that prevent offenders from interacting with children, said Board of Probation and Parole spokesman Jack Elder, and were not enacted in response to any specific problems the board has seen during the Halloween season.

[…]

The Tennessee restrictions prohibit sex offenders from attending Halloween events, such as cornfield mazes and haunted houses, handing out treats, displaying Halloween decorations, accompanying trick-or-treating children or wearing costumes.

[…]

Parole-board officers will conduct spot checks to make sure the offenders are obeying the rules. Violators could lose their parole or probation.

Good for Tennessee. This move is a logical and well thought out decision that runs the risk of being very unpopular with certain legal actives groups, such as the ACLU.

The article also notes that several other states have enacted similar laws, and the trend is expanding. Given the ACLUs stance on restricting where Sex Offenders can live and if they can frequent public parks, this sounds right on target. I am surprised the ACLU has yet to make a comment on this.

The following was cross posted from Revealing The ACLU:

As we should all be aware, the US is not a direct democracy, and such was not the intent of our Founding Fathers. In a Direct Democracy there is nothing to protect the minorities from the majority. What was put in place, and still stands today is a republic, or representative democracy. Our system provides for the will of the people and the protection of all, not just the majority. I have often wondered if we are living in the republic the founders intended, or have we squandered a hard won fresh start? How do the issues we face today fit into the intent and direction of our founding fathers? In most cases there is no difference between the right of the majority and the right of the minority – we all have equal protection under the law. But what about new rights which where not envisioned in the original constitution – what then?

First, as a framework, let us set some structure around rights in general. The often used phrase “Unalienable Rights” is not something you will find in the constitution, it actually appears in the Declaration of Independence. The constitutional stance on rights are specific to those items set out in first 10 amendments to the constitution (The Bill or Rights) or other parts of the constitution, like the 14th Amendment and Article 1 sections 9 & 10 , which may take a stance on particular rights. The point here is that certain Rights are inherent to all Americans, and are not open for discussion or debate, at least by the democratic process. Other rights, not specifically mentioned in the constitution, are put into the realm of democratic debate. There is a democratic process for creating new laws in this country; either through direct vote or through our duly elected representatives.

Next, lets make sure we are on the same page in discussion the roles of the branches of government in this context. The legislative branch of government is that with the authority to make new laws. The Judicial branch, made up of our court systems, decides arguments about the meaning of laws, how laws are applied in specific situations, and if a law is consistent within the framework and intent of the constitution. The judicial branch cannot make new laws.

Lastly, lets make sure we are all on the same page on the definition of minority and majority – politically speaking. The best definition of a minority I could find came courtesy of Wickipedia:

A minority or subordinate group is a sociological group that does not constitute a politically dominant plurality of the total population of a given society. A sociological minority is not necessarily a numerical minority — it may include any group that is disadvantaged with respect to a dominant group.

Majority is a little easier, but lets define it anyway:

A majority is a subset of a group that is more than half of the entire group. This should not be confused with a plurality, which is a subset having the largest number of parts. A plurality is not necessarily a majority, as the largest subset may be less than half of the entire group.

We have lots of people calamining to be minorities – and in many of the cases today it gets blurry on what a political minority is. I agree that race, sex, and even age should be a bases on which to claim political minority. But how about belief? Can a group holding to a belief claim they are a minority because most people believe otherwise? The logic becomes tenuous quickly.

So where do issues like Same Sex Marriage or Abortion come into play when cast into the above light? I would like to review these two items separately, and according to the constitutional merit, not the merit of the item itself. That is to say, my thoughts on both topics has already been stated, so rather than reiterating those points, lets just look at them from a raw constitutional point of view.

Lets take the more straightforward, in my opinion, first: Abortion. To begin we have to ask if Abortion is a right under the US Constitution. Dose the constitution address abortion at all? I have been unable to find any reference to Abortion in the constitution. So where dose that leave us?

It should leave us in the realm of democratic debate – when the issue of abortion is taken up at the legislative level, and made legal only after majority rule either directly by the people or by the duly elected legislature. To the best of my knowledge, the people have never been asked to rule on abortion directly. Those abortion bills which have reached state or federal legislative bodies have all had to do with refining abortion limits. An example being the proposed ban on partial birth abortions which was highly visible in the Senate this past year.

This being the case, why is abortion legal? Because the judicial branch of government has opted to make it so in cases such as Roe v Wade.

Justice Rehnquist, certainly not a conservative member of the Supreme Court during Roe v Wade summed it up nicely:

“ . . . the Court uses her complaint against the Texas statute as a fulcrum for deciding that States may impose virtually no restrictions on medical abortions performed during the first trimester of pregnancy. In deciding such a hypothetical lawsuit, the Court departs from the longstanding admonition that it should never “formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied . . . the Court’s sweeping invalidation of any restrictions on abortion during the first trimester is impossible to justify under that standard, and the conscious weighing of competing factors that the Court’s opinion apparently substitutes for the established test is far more appropriate to a legislative judgment than to a judicial one. There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter.”

Justice Byron White, another member of the court at the time, has the following to say:

Regardless of whether I might agree with that marshaling of values, I can in no event join the Court’s judgment because I find no constitutional warrant for imposing such an order of priorities on the people and legislatures of the States. In a sensitive area such as this, involving as it does issues over which reasonable men may easily and heatedly differ, I cannot accept the Court’s exercise of its clear power of choice by interposing a constitutional barrier to state efforts to protect human life and by investing mothers and doctors with the constitutionally protected right to exterminate it. This issue, for the most part, should be left with the people and to the political processes the people have devised to govern their affairs.“

Both Rehnquist and White where clear in the belief that Abortion, regardless of their personal beliefs, was an issue to be decided by the legislative branch of government, not the judicial. Unfortunately the majority of the Supreme Court at the time did not agree. Democracy did not have a hand here – it was 7 men who where atypical of society at large who decided this issue. This is important as the overwhelming belief of the time was fundamental Christian, and the democratic process would likely not have supported abortion as the Supreme Court had done.

Now lets looks at a slightly more complex issue, that of extending marriage into non-traditional areas such as gay marriage.

Where this issue becomes more complex is on the minority issue. Remembering our previously definitions of majority and minority can we apply the term minority to Homosexuality? That is not an easy question, even if you have a strong opinion on homosexuality. Homosexuals are certainly a numeric minority. Depending on who is presenting the numbers, they have been stated as anywhere from 1.5% to 10% of the US Population. Where the logic becomes frayed is the “nature vs nurture” issue. If Homosexuality is a choice then I see no logical foundation upon which to grant the rights of a minority group. The limits, strictures, and restrictions of homosexuality are taken into account with the choice. The choice itself should not confer special privileges or rights. If homosexuality is not a choice and biologically driven, then I see no choice, despite my personal beliefs, but to accept that homosexuality is a minority group, and it be treated accordingly – such treatment logically to include equal protection, recognition of unions, and any other benefits heterosexuals enjoy.

Unfortunately, like so many things, science can be used to further either view. There has been no groundbreaking discovery’s to settle that argument and I most certainly do not plan to offer any here.
This article goes into depth with both views, but concludes that neither has been definitively stated.

Let me be clear, before I am hung by my fellow conservatives: My faith and belief structure hold homosexuality as a sin, and with all sin there is a conscious choice element. My goal here is, once again, not to rule on the validity of a position but upon the constitutional rules and logic which should apply to it.

Having no other evidence on which to settle the nature vs. nurture argument, I see no choice but to move on to the constitutionality test. I am not abdicating on this issue, but at this time there is no right answer. We cannot just sit and wait on these issues until science catches up.

Is homosexuality defined as a right in the US Constitution? Better yet, lets take a step further and ask instead if there is a constitutional right to sexual freedom? Neither appears in the constitution, and the concepts cannot be applied to the Bill of Rights. There have been attempts to link homosexuality with the right of privacy as homosexual acts should normally occur within the privacy of ones own home. However, we can see how that logic dose not apply to Homosexual marriage.

So next we have to turn to the democratic process to resolve the issue. That is, put before the legislature or the people proposals to legalize homosexuality. It should be debated in a democratic way, and the will of the people or their elected representatives. Fortunately, much more so that abortion, this issue of gay marriage has followed the democratic process. In nearly ever case where the legislature has sought to address gay marriage, the overwhelming result has been the blocking of gay marriage. As of this writing Massachusetts is the only state which has passed a law in support of gay marriage – and this was done correctly though the democratic process. Not all states have taken a stance at this point, but additional legislation is in the works for most states.

More recently, however, the courts have been stepping into this issue – wrongly in my opinion. Most recently, this week, The New Jersey Supreme Court rules that homosexual couples should be accorded the same rights as heterosexual couples. This decision has taken the discussion out of the democratic process and foced a preconceived end result on the legislature. The New Jersey Supreme Court has decided that the voice of the people will not be heard in this issue and they are, sadly, protected as they are appointed judges, not elected.

When the courts step into issues which are not constitutional issues they in effect, create a new right separate from what the constitution had ever envisioned. While our constitution should be an ever growing and maturing thing, the course of that maturation should never be at the hands of the unelected judges who are not beholden to the will of the people. Judges who see fit the legislate from the bench are violating the intent of our constitution, the will of the people, and the trust placed in them.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia sums it up probably the best of all:

“On controversial issues on stuff like homosexual rights, abortion, we debate with each other and persuade each other and vote on it either through representatives or a constitutional amendment. Whether it’s good or bad is not my job. My job is simply to say if those things you find desirable are contained in the Constitution.”

If the constitution is silent, as it is on issues like Abortion and Same Sex Marriage, then it is up to the democratic process, not appointed judges, to decide. The courts do have an obligation to protect the rights of the few from trampling by the many, but they do not have the authority to create new rights.

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU

Imagine if a Church used the power of its tax exemption as a lever towards political campaigns. Can you imagine the outrage from groups like the ACLU if a Church used its tax exempt donations to create political ads opposing candidates that did not adhere to certain “American values” as interpreted by that Church? What if a Christian Religious organization were to use its official title to oppose certain political issues such as abortion?

We don’t have to imagine, the ACLU’s history shows us. They would challenge that Church’s tax exempt status.

“In 1970, the year after the ACLU issued its first policy opposing the tax exempt status for churches; it accepted the advice of church and state extremist Leo Pfeffer and drafted a brief opposing tax exemptions in Waltz v. Tax Commission. In 1987, the ACLU Foundation and the New York Civil Liberties Union filed an amicus brief in support of Abortion Rights Mobilization to secure standing in a suit challenging the tax exempt status of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church was charged with violating its tax-exempt status by taking a stand against abortion.”Source

However the ACLU’s official policy goes even further. In the ACLU’s eyes a Church doesn’t even have to be politically involved to deserve having its tax exempt status stripped.

During the 1988 presidential campaign the ACLU was brought under the spotlight. Michael Dukakis, the democrat nominee, proudly stated, “I’m a card-carrying member of the American Civil Liberties Union.” These words would soon come back to haunt him. I will not focus too much on this campaign other than using it as evidence of the ACLU’s position on the tax exemption of churches. However, Dukakis’s association with this group proved to be a major factor in his defeat.

During the first debate, Peter Jennings of ABC asked George Bush why he continued to make an issue out of Dukakis’s membership in the ACLU. Bush replied that he didn’t like most of the ACLU’s positions and offered four of them. We will just focus on the one we are talking about right now. Bush said, “I don’t think they’re right to try to take away the tax exemption of the Catholic Church.”

The ACLU doesn’t deny their position! Norman Dorsen, president of the American Civil Liberties Union from 1976 to 1991, refuted Bush’s statements, and said that the ACLU opposes tax exemption for all churches, not just the Catholic Church.Source

Here is a little more history on the issue from Twilight of Liberty.

“ACLU founder Roger Baldwin once told me that the ACLU’s desire to strip the churches of their tax exempt status was “very foolish.” But in 1969, some nineteen years after Baldwin stepped down as executive director, the Union adopted its first policy opposing “tax exemption for church property which is used exclusively for religious purposes.’ In the latest policy on this subject, it makes no difference to the Union whether church property is not used exclusively for religious purposes, all are denied: “The ACLU opposes tax benefits for religious bodies”, seven examples are listed for clarification, including the benefit of tax exemption.”Source

The ACLU proudly claims that they are “wholly non-partisan.” It portrays itself as an objective organization that is “neither liberal nor conservative, Republican nor Democrat.” They say instead that they are “a public interest organization devoted exclusively to protecting the basic civil liberties of all Americans.” However, while the ACLU was taking aim at the Catholic Church’s tax exempt status, the Union affiliate in Providence, Rhode Island, came out in favor of a tax exemption for Wiccans. They went and got a tax administrator to rule that a coven of witches were entitled the same tax-exemption as churches had.

Does this sound like the position of a “nonpartisan” group? Does it sound like the position of a group that should be tax exempt? What happened to opposing tax exemptions on all religious bodies? Pick your policy. Either oppose it for all, or fight to expand it to all. You can’t claim non-partisanship while opposing it for one religious body and fighting to expand it to others.

Now imagine if an organization claiming to be non-partisan used the power of its tax exemption as a lever towards political campaigns. What if this organization used its funds to create political ads opposing candidates that did not adhere to certain “American values” as interpreted by that organization?

We don’t have to imagine, the ACLU’s hypocrisy shows us. It also has once again brought it into internal division as one local branch thinks it crossed the line. The Political Pit Bull has video of this being talked about on O’Reilly.

Leaders of the ACLU’s Connecticut affiliate have objected to an advertisement placed by the national ACLU that ran in the Hartford Courant late last month. The advertisement focused on Senator Lieberman, a Democrat who is running as an independent after losing a primary bid to an anti-war candidate, Ned Lamont.

“Will Senator Joe Lieberman pass this test on American values?” the ad asks. It features Mr. Lieberman’s photograph and office telephone number, along with warnings about pending legislation about detainees, torture, and wiretapping. “Tell Joe Lieberman his votes on this assault on American values will help determine your vote in November,” the ad says.

The chairman of the board of the Connecticut ACLU, Don Noel Jr., said he and several other board members felt it breached the organization’s pledge to stay out of electoral politics.

“It seemed to us to cross the line on partisanship, or to cross the line on not being nonpartisan,” Mr. Noel told The New York Sun yesterday. “I have complained and the national office has agreed with me. They have said they are sorry this might have been seen as partisan.” NY Sun

The ACLU has consistently abused its tax exempt status by claiming to be non-partisan. However, a simple glimpse at the ACLU’s record shows many examples of how this is untrue. While the ACLU has proudly made abortion its number one priority it has not only ignored the free speech of abortion protesters but actively fought to silence them.

William Donohue accurately argues:

“Social reform, in a liberal direction, is the sine qua non of the ACLU. Its record, far from showing a momentary wavering from impartiality, is replete with attempts to reform American society according to the wisdom of liberalism. The truth of the matter is that the ACLU has always been a highly politicized organization.”Source

Throughout its history the ACLU has revealed its partisanship. It opposed the Viet Nam War. It demanded unilateral nuclear disarmament. It called for disinvestment in South Africa. It violated its own policy in order to stymie the nomination of William Rehnquist to the Supreme Court. During the eight years of the Reagan Administration, it blasted the President with one invective after another much as it does today with President Bush. It led the fight to defeat the confirmation of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court and more recently the confirmation of Samuel Alito. It frequently writes speeches for candidates that it likes. It lobbies its cause to Congress. Did you know that it has divided itself into two groups? The ACLU and the ACLU Foundation. This allows them to work the courts with one hand while being paid by taxpayer funding when the win, and lobby to Congress with the other. It even issues scorecards on Senators and Representatives evaluating their performance according to the ACLU’s own ideological measuring stick. Source

The American Civil Liberties Union is destroying America’s culture and Constitution, while the federal government allows it to operate as a nonprofit, tax-exempt charitable organization. Non-profit organizations are not supposed to spend their tax-exempt assets on political campaigning, because that is not the purpose for which they were given the exemption. Furthermore, if an organization is to benefit by claiming non-partisanship it should practice that concept consistently and be held to those standards, unlike the ACLU’s double standard practices.

As a result of the above examples and much more, I believe that the ACLU has forfeited its right to operate as a tax-exempt organization. It is a political organization and should not be subsidized by my tax dollars. The IRS should do away with tax exemptions of political organizations hiding behind the mask of being non-profit and non-partisan. If only we could find some politicians willing to push for it.

I picked up the following on Reuters: