What organization best represents your views?
|Supports voter photo ID laws||Yes||No|
|Supports accurate voter rolls||Yes||No|
|Supports enforcing immigration law and border enforcement||Yes||No|
|Supports gun rights for law-abiding Americans||Yes||No|
|Supports religious liberty in the public square||Yes||No|
|Supports religious freedom in the U.S. armed forces||Yes||No|
|Supports respect for employers’ religious rights||Yes||No|
|Supports racial equality under the law (not racial quotas)||Yes||No|
|Supports local public decency laws||Yes||No|
|Supports laws against possessing child pornography||Yes||No|
The ACLU’s Real Agenda
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) claims that it defends constitutional rights, particularly those protected under the First Amendment.
But the ACLU’s choice of cases and its long track record on behalf of radical, leftist causes reveal the organization’s bias against election integrity measures, border security, and the genuine exercise of the freedoms of religion, speech, association and traditional American values.
At the same time, the ACLU is biased toward illegal immigration, racial quotas, obscenity, indecency, anti-family agendas, and other factors that work against the civil society, ordered liberty and self-government.
Below are some examples, which are by no means exhaustive. In fact, they represent only the tip of the ACLU iceberg:
Section I: Voter Photo ID Laws and Accurate Voter Rolls
The ACLU has consistently opposed election reforms to reduce the vulnerability of our voting process. Through its Voting Rights Project, it has fought vehemently as states across the nation have enacted photo voter ID laws and other measures intended to reduce the possibility of vote fraud.
The legal tactic employed by the ACLU is to present a handful of plaintiffs who claim harm for having to produce a photo ID in order to vote in person. Interestingly, the ACLU has not filed similar lawsuits against airlines, banks, government agencies, beer and wine stores, and the U.S. Justice Department visitor’s desk for requiring photo IDs.
In Georgia, the ACLU claimed that hundreds of thousands of voters lacked photo IDs. After two years of litigation, neither the ACLU nor other liberal organizations making the claim produced even one person without a photo ID or who could not easily obtain one, as noted by the federal district court judge who dismissed the claim [See p. 65 of Who’s Counting? by John Fund and Hans von Spakovsky (Encounter Books, 2012)].
In 2011, the ACLU sued Wisconsin over its photo ID law. In 2013, the ACLU sued Kansas over its proof-of-citizenship requirement for voting. In April 2014, the ACLU sued Arkansas over its new photo ID law. (By contrast, the American Civil Rights Union [ACRU] has championed voter ID laws as essential to protecting the integrity of every legal vote, and has sued counties in Mississippi, Texas, and Florida over their inaccurate voter registration rolls.)
Section II: Illegal Immigration and Border Enforcement
ACLU to Small Towns and States: Accept Illegal Immigration
The ACLU and its affiliated lawyers have financially crushed many small towns which sought to enforce federal laws that defined illegal immigration. At least 40 cities have considered illegal immigration laws, including cities that passed such laws but later repealed them, or were overruled by state laws that take priority over local ordinances.
The ACLU has supported all challenges to local ordinances, and went on to attack the statewide Arizona immigration enforcement law. On Sept. 24, 2014, the ACLU filed another suit in federal court accusing Pinal County sheriff’s deputies of improperly using the state immigration law, SB 1070, to detain an illegal immigrant who was driving with a cracked windshield and without a license and subsequently turn her over to the Border Patrol, as required by the law.
When a Colorado resident discovered that his identity and Social Security number had been stolen and were being illegally used, the theft was traced to a tax preparation firm that specialized in doing tax work for people of Mexican heritage who may or may not be in the United States legally.
A court-issued a search warrant on the firm was challenged by the ACLU as being unconstitutional.
Section III: Gun Rights for Law-Abiding Americans
The ACLU’s website states:
“[T]he ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right.
“In striking down Washington D.C.’s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller  held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia. The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court’s conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment.”
Section IV: Religious Liberty in the Public Square
Historian Paul Kengor examines the roots of the ACLU and finds an abiding affection for communism and a hostility to Christianity. “To cite just one example, Christmas 1946, one of the first for returning troops from World War II, the ACLU initiated legal action to stop the singing of Christmas carols in California public schools.”
Section V: Religious Freedom in the U.S. Armed Forces
At California’s Mojave National Preserve, a small, pipe-met
al cross, originally erected by World War I veterans to honor their fallen comrades, came under attack when a former Park Service employee and ACLU member claimed it offended him. Although he had moved to Oregon, he said he came down a few times a year and saw the cross. That was enough for the ACLU to file a lawsuit demanding that the National Park Service tear down the cross. Likewise, the ACLU litigated relentlessly to have the Mt. Soledad cross at a San Diego Korean War veterans memorial torn down despite backing for the cross from the U.S. Congress and a city referendum with 76% of the citizenry supporting the monument.
The ACLU supports the campaign led by the virulently anti-Christian activist Mikey Weinstein of the oxymoronically-named Military Religious Freedom Foundation to stamp out the freedom to share one’s faith with others at the nation’s military academies.
For example, here is the ACLU of Colorado’s stance regarding the Air Force Academy: “We endorse the Foundation’s demand for an immediate and comprehensive study by the Dept. of Defense of any direct or tacit endorsement by the USAF Academy Superintendent or other staff, of aggressive proselytizing by fundamentalist Christian factions of USAF Academy cadets and staff, both on and off campus.”
The ACLU also attacked the Naval Academy’s long tradition of “noon meal prayers,” which would have shocked the U.S. Navy’s founder, John Adams, of whom historian David McCullough wrote, “It was John Adams who drafted the first set of rules and regulations for the new navy—a point of pride for him as long as he lived.” The second of the principles that Adams wrote for the Continental Navy states: “The Commanders of the ships of the Thirteen United Colonies are to take care that divine service be performed twice a day on board, and a sermon preached on Sundays….” [Source: Endowed by Their Creator: A Collection of Historic American Military Prayers 1774-Present, First Principles Press, 2012, p. 3.]
Section VI: Respect for Employers’ Religious Rights
The wailing and gnashing of teeth over the very modest Hobby Lobby  case shows that it was a precursor for the real game that is afoot: forcing those with religious beliefs against abortion and assisted suicide (among other “interventions”) to participate or get out of medicine. No conscience allowed.
The Seattle branch of the ACLU threatened a lawsuit to prevent public-private partnerships, approval of new Catholic hospitals and a proposed consolidation of Catholic hospital chains. The problem is that these hospitals are strictly about healing. That’s been the mission of Christian hospitals since Roman times. Because the church won’t offer contraceptives, abortifacients, abortions, sterilizations, or euthanasia, the ACLU says the state should think twice about approving any new church-run hospitals.
Despite the ACLU’s effort to censor a “religious” speaker at a Nebraska high school, students got to hear a compelling account of why they should not drink and drive from a man whose brother was killed by a drunk driver.
The ACLU of Nebraska had warned school officials that the speaker’s presence might be a violation of the First Amendment’s prohibition on establishment of religion. In the ACLU’s atheist-biased world, religious references or speakers in a public setting are always suspect.
“On any given day, holdups are going down somewhere in America. But the perps are equipped with brief-cases, not guns, and they usually score far more than your average mugger,” wrote ACRU Senior Fellow Robert Knight in a Washington Times column.
“We’re talking about ACLU attorneys who shake down taxpayers with lawsuits against cities, counties, schools and library boards. They have collected tens of millions of dollars over the years while stripping communities of some aspect of their heritage, usually Christian symbols, prayers or Ten Commandments monuments.
“Sadly, when faced with the threat of huge legal bills, public officials usually give up even when their case is winnable.”
Browbeating the Boy Scouts
In August 2000, two months after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts of America have a constitutional right to determine their own moral standards for membership and leadership, the ACLU sued in federal court in San Diego seeking to have the local Scouts evicted from Balboa Park and from an aquatic center they had built on Mission Bay. A Clinton-appointed federal judge ruled in the ACLU plaintiffs’ favor in 2003, but his ill-reasoned decision was eventually overturned by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in January 2013.
In contrast to the ACLU’s attack on the Scouts, the ACRU filed amicus briefs in 2004 and in 2009 defending the Scouts’ San Diego Council, which had welcomed the Scouts to Balboa Park since 1957. In fact, the ACRU filed supportive briefs in every major case involving the Scouts, including BSA v. Dale in 2000.
Section VII: Racial Equality Under the Law
As author Bill Donohue notes in his book Twilight of Liberty: The Legacy of the ACLU, the ACLU “was not always in favor of judging people on the basis of group criteria. Prior to the 1970s, the ACLU opposed racial quotas, [but] the ACLU reversed its position and became a rabid enthusiast of equal results.” As such, the ACLU has promoted mandatory “affirmative action” and “has repeatedly challenged the merits of qualifying exams used to select police officers, firefighters, truck drivers, electricians, et al., arguing that women and minorities fail the tests at a higher rate.”
In April 2014, the ACLU was on the losing end of a U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding a Michigan constitutional amendment approved in a referendum that ended preferential treatment in Michigan’s university admissions. (The ACRU, by contrast, filed an amicus brief supporting the right of the people of Michigan to end reverse discrimination.)
The ACLU also opposed in a court brief the claim by Abigail Fisher that she suffered reverse discrimination at the University of Texas, a case in which the ACRU filed a brief on behalf
of Ms. Fisher, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear her case.
Section VIII: Local Public Decency Laws
The ACLU has long opposed public decency laws, including obscenity laws and the prohibition of possession of child pornography. In Washington State, regardless of the harm to children, the ACLU tried and failed to get Internet filters removed from public libraries. The ruling in Bradburn v. North Central Regional Library District was based on the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA), a law Congress passed in 2000 and the U.S. Supreme Court upheld in 2003 that requires libraries receiving federal funds to deny access to obscenity and child pornography. The ACLU, of course, opposed passage of the law and now opposes its enforcement.
The ACLU filed suit in 2009 in Indiana to support the “freedom of speech” of two high school students who posted their photographs on Facebook, wearing lingerie and holding phallic objects.
When these photos were brought to his attention, their school principal suspended the students from the sports team that they were on. They were not suspended from school. And subject to certain conditions, those suspensions could be ended.
The ACLU then filed suit in U.S. District Court, claiming that no discipline should have been applied to the girls because this was “a matter of freedom of speech” under the First Amendment.
Section IX: Possessing Child Pornography
The ACLU opposes legal production of child pornography, but not the possession of it.
Here’s a summary of its policy found on the ACLU of Arizona’s website:
“Your idea of what is offensive may be a lot different from your neighbor’s. In fact, the ACLU does take a very purist approach in opposing censorship. Our policy is that possessing even pornographic material about children should not itself be a crime. The way to deal with this issue is to prosecute the makers of child pornography for exploiting minors.”
By letting consumers of child porn off the hook, the ACLU looks the other way at a huge market that spurs exploitation of children. The ACLU also opposes bans on virtual explicit images of child pornography, as if such material does not lead to actual molestations of real children.