ACRU

ACLU to Raise $335 Million to Attack the US Heartland

The ACLU has just announced a $335 million fund-raising campaign intended to strengthen its operations in “heartland” states. In most cases, it will publicly attack in court and out, positions on issues such as “immigrants’ rights, gay rights, and opposition to the death penalty.” In those issues, the ACLU will be asking unelected judges to reverse the policies set by elected officials or by voters themselves through initiatives.

The facts for this story, but not the legal conclusions, come from an Associated Press article on 9 June, 2008, and published many places on the Internet and in newspapers. The ACLU has announced its “largest fund-raising campaign in its history.” It is seeking to raise $335 million dollars, of which $258 million has already been raised in “behind-the-scenes solicitations.”

The important questions are three-fold. Where is the ACLU raising this money? Where does it plan to spend this money? And, what are the targeted issues? The answers to all three questions are dangerous to the future of the US.

Only one major donor is identified in the article. George Soros gave $12 million through his Open Society Institute. Soros is legendary for his support for left-wing issues, candidates, and political organizations. Given the recent history of the ACLU, it is likely that other major donors are of the same stripe. Unlike openly political organizations, the ACLU is not required to report in public and in searchable data bases, the people who contribute to it.

Where is the money to be spent? The article says that the ACLU intends to target “relatively conservative states such as Texas and Florida.” The ACLU is more circumspect in its own press release. It says, “The purpose is to build a civil liberties infrastructure in the middle of the country — where battleground states are often under-resourced and our efforts are most needed….”

The history of ACLU litigation offers a reasonable prediction of what it will do with this massive funding. It will threaten law suits, and file law suits, in towns and states where ACLU views are least popular. And in each case, it will seek attorneys fees and costs when it badgers a potential defendant into submission, or when it prevails in court.

These hundreds of millions of dollars are not intended to pay for this kind of litigation. The money is only intended to prime the pump, so the litigation can be conducted in states where ACLU fund-raising is not as successful. The litigation is intended to pay for itself, by funds extracted from local and state taxpayers, either because the potential defendants cave under pressure, or because courts order such payments from public coffers.

Lastly, what are the preferred issues on which the ACLU will go on the attack in the heartlands?

ACLU executive director Anthony Romero named the issues in statements made available to the AP. They will be “issues such as immigrants’ rights, gay rights, police brutality and opposition to the death penalty as causes that would be pursued vigorously as the ACLU expanded in heartland states.”

These issues, long rejected by the voters and elected officials in the targeted states, will be forced on the following states, among others, by order of unelected judges: Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico and Tennessee, “with even the smallest ACLU affiliates in line to get extra funding to hire new attorneys and launch new advocacy programs.”

What can be done about the rising tide of dictated government from the bench, rather than what Abraham Lincoln quaintly called “government of the people, by the people and for the people”? Congress controls both the jurisdiction of the federal courts and awards of attorneys fees and costs by those courts. Furthermore, if the ACLU has in fact become an ad hoc political party, its preferred status under the IRS laws on charities could be ended.

At the very end of the article, the AP spends three paragraphs talking about organizations which strongly oppose what the ACLU is doing. “The most dangerous organization in America is trying to become more dangerous,” said Mike Johnson, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund. One other, Florida-based, conservative organization is quoted.

This announced and deliberate assault on the citizens and elected officials in America’s heartland by the ACLU can be deflected and stopped. But that can happen only if some elected officials in Washington wake up and smell the coffee.

THIS IS WHY GROUPS LIKE THE ACRU ARE SO CRITICAL TO THE DEFENSE OF OUR FREEDOMS.

Source for original story on the Net:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iNQbm1rMYp_b6OxO7ccLq3n7gQ4gD916OOTO0