Bulletin To Anthony Romero
Posted on August 16, 2005
Thank you to my dad for finding this, and to Undiscovered Country for emailing the excerpt.
Anthony Romero is the executive director of the ACLU.
The following is an excerpt from the book 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America written by Bernard Goldberg Anthony Romero made #5 on the list.
I’ve never been a card-carrying member of the American Civil Liberties
Union, but for many years I liked what the organization was doing.As a strong free-speech advocate myself, I supported the
ACLU when it defendd the right of Nazis to march through Skokie,
Illionois, a town heavily populated by Jews, including many who
survived Holocaust. True, I wouldn’t have shed any tears if, say, a
tornado had kicked up and killed every last one of the brown-shirted
(censored) as they goose-stepped through town. Still, if the government
can stop Nazis from marching, I figured, whom else can it stop?I’m also with theACLU when it musters the courage – as it
occasionaly does – to speak up for college kids who get in trouble
with the “speech police” for saying something that offends the
hypersensitive on campus, something about race or sex or gay rights.And even though I’m personally for the death penalty, I even
liked the fact that the ACLU fought against it, arguing that it
amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. That kind of lively debate is
good for our democracy.So let’s be fair, over the years the ACLU has done a lot of good.
But let’s also face facts: it’s also done a great deal of
bad, particularly in recent years; things that are deeply offensive
not only to ordinary Americans but also to common sense and common
decency.Like what?
Like the ACLU sued the Boy Scouts of America and got them
kicked out of a city park in San Diego, where they had camped out for
decades, on the grounds that it was a religious organization.The ACLU has argued that even a moment of silence in public
schools can amount to the “establishment of religion” and is therefore
unconstitutional.The ACLU forced the county of Los Angeles to take a tiny cross
of its seal, on the grounds that it violated the
separation-of-church-and-state doctrine, even though it represented
the historical founding of Los Angeles by Catholic missionaries and
was’t advocating religion in any way.The ACLU has argued that a doctor should not be allowed to tell
a wife that her husband has the AIDS virus, because “the benefits of
confidentiality outweigh the possibility that someone may be injured,”
as an ACLU spokesman explained it.And the ACLU has even defended the loathsome North American man
Boy Love Association – an organization that “celebrates the joys of
men and boys in love” – arguing that just because one of its members
read material on the NAMBLA Web site and then, with a friend, went out
and kidnapped, sexually assaulted, and killed a ten-year-old boy,
NAMBLA cannot be held responsible for helping incite the murder. Even
pedophiles have First Amendment rights, the Massachusetts ACLU argued.And now we have the ACLU, in all its high-mindedess,
aggressively taking on the most urgent issue of our time: the war on
terrorism.Thanks in large part to its national director, Anthony Romero, a
soft-spoken, obviously intelligent man who took over just before
September 11, 2001, “In the nearly three years since the mass murder
of 3000 innocent people on American soil by fanatical Muslim
terrorists, there is not a single law or policy that the ACLU has
supported that would help prevent a bloody repeat of September 11,” as
Michelle Malkin pointed out in her syndicated column on July 28, 2004.
Indeed, thanks to Romero, the ACLU has become an organization “that
maintains dangeroulsy absolutist positions,” as Malkin put it, on all
sorts of measures aimed at fighting terrorism.Under Romero, who certainly means well, nothing is quite
perfect enough for the ACLU. In fact, in late 2004, the ACLU flat out
rejected over one million dollars from the Ford and Rockefeller
foundations – because the money came with anti-terrorism strings
attached. It seems that, like every other organization the foundations
support, the ACLU would have you sign a piece of paper that says, “By
signing this grant letter you agree that your organization will not
promote or engage in violence, terrorism, bigotry or the destruction
of any state, nor will it make sub-grants to any entity that engages
in these activities.” Pretty basic stuff, right? Well, no. No to the
ACLU. “What do the mean by terrorism?” Romero wanted to know. “What
constitutes support for terrorism?” To Anthony Romero, and the other
absolutists at the ACLU, the foundations’ attempt to make sure their
money stayed out of the hands of terrorists amounted to nothing less
than a threat to civil liberties and free speech!So, what does the ACLU see as its job, during this
extraordinarily dangerous period in our history? As Anthony Romero
himself says, it is “to defend ourselves against John Ashcroft (who has
since resigned as attorney general) and a government that tramples on
the Constitution in the name of national security.”Well, here’s a bulletin, Mr. Romero: The ACLU doesn’t have a
monopoly on virtue. Most americans are decent people who care about
civil liberties, too. It’s just that most of us understand that in
times like these, when Muslim fundamentalists want to kill us and our
children, honest mistakes might be made from time to time. It was a
lot worse under Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War, when he
suspended all sorts of civil rights – for the sake of the nation -
and the United States and its people came out of that war even
stronger in our support for civil iberties.Sure, at some point, the FBI may ask a librarian for
information on what some suspected terrorist was reading. Maybe the
suspect will be an Arab and maybe some Arab organizations will cry
“descrimination.” Sorry. It’s a small price to pay for living in a
free country that happens to be at war. And it would also be nice if
we got a little less whining from the ACLU about profiling at the
airport and a little more visceral outrage at the Islamic fascists who
would like nothing better than to kill every last one of us infidels.I’m not a lawyer, but I get it. We all get it: If the government
is allowed to “trample” on the rights of any one of us, then none of us
is safe from government tyranny. To which I say, bullshit. We live in
a different world than we did on September 10, 2001. It would help
everyone, starting with Anthony Romero and the ACLU, would be a little
more understanding, a little more flexible, a little less absolutist.
Right now the number one civil right most Americans care about is the
one about our ass not getting blown up by some lunatic who thinks he’s
doing it for Allah. We’ll worry about who’s looking over our shoulder at
the library when things calm down.
Also, check out The Carnival Of The Clueless
Mudville Gazette and Outside The Beltway
» Filed Under ACLU
Trackback URL
Comments
14 Responses to “Bulletin To Anthony Romero”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
“Even
pedophiles have First Amendment rights, the Massachusetts ACLU argued.”
If nazis have them, why not pedophiles?
Dang, you spoiled the ending for this fabulous book I’m reading. I hadn’t made it to #5 yet. This info alone ahould make any card-carrying ACLU members run for cover! Let’s keep working to take them down!!! If the book were “100 Organizations that Screw Up America” the ACLU would surely be #1. That is why I am happy to be on your bandwagon!
NAMBLA argues that children should be given the legal right of consent. They even argue that children benefit from sexual contact. That’s a subjective conclusion that a vast majority of parents find repulsive. Ultimately I think, as a legal standard, we should agree that people are responsible for their own behavior unless it can be proven they are mentally retarded. No matter what NAMBLA says or publishes, I fail to see how their actions forced those two men to kidnap, molest, and kill that boy.
I find NAMBLA disgusting and would be only too happy to see the group harassed into oblivion but I will not support doing it in a way that I would otherwise find repugnant if we were talking about any other group. I simply am not a person who thinks the means justify the ends.
ops i see i may have been living in a closet , who the heck is Nambla ?
Wow, incredible but true. Thanks for sharing. By the way, I appreciate you stopping by my site and leaving comments.
Your Sister In Christ,
Gina if you have not found out by now. NAMBLA is an organization of homosexuals (queers)(perverts) who promote the right of those scumbags to have sexual contact with young boys.
“No matter what NAMBLA says or publishes, I fail to see how their actions forced those two men to kidnap, molest, and kill that boy.”
Mark is right. In any free society, you have to have accountability. The accountability resides with the individual in almost every circumstance (maybe choices between death and being forced to do something illegal are exceptions). NAMBLA is repellent in every way. But it didn’t MAKE anyone do anything.
I understand the desire to want to tar everyone with the same brush, so long as you’ve got the tar out. But you have to consider the legal consequences of doing so (i.e. you can’t rely on your government to make the distinction that you’re making here). Governments need very clearly defined laws, otherwise they abuse their power (perhaps that explains why Germany now has more laws on the books than all the nations in Europe combined — at least, that’s what they like to say).
With a defense of NAMBLA, it’s less about what NAMBLA does, and more about the fact that there may be a time when something that you actually think is valuable is attacked using the same ruling that was used against NAMBLA.
For example, say this site advocates the destruction of the YMCA, and someone takes that to mean doing something violent. You could be held accountable for it because of the prior ruling against NAMBLA. Not such a great precendent, if you ask me. NAMBLA may be disgusting, but in order to protect your free speech, theirs needs to be protected too (even when it’s absolutely contrary to everything that’s good).
Yes, what Laurence said.
Their actions are indefensible but their guilt in that boys murder offends every notion of intent, personal responsibility, and fairness.
If you don’t like what they say, figure out the legal grounds to shut them up. But to suggest that what someone says creates enough guilt to charge them with the crimes of another is simply ridiculous. Should GM be charged with conspiracy to commit grand theft because they publish manuals on their ignition systems? Should Fox Television be sued because some terrorists blow up a commuter train as depicted in the series ‘24′?
It’s all prepostorous.
“Mark is right. In any free society, you have to have accountability. The accountability resides with the individual in almost every circumstance…”
I believe ‘responibility’ resides with the individual and ‘accountability’ with society.
Just call me old-fashioned!
“I believe ‘responibility’ resides with the individual and ‘accountability’ with society.”
I believe individuals must be held to “account” for their actions. I also believe that people ought to be held responsible for them. I believe society as a whole cannot be accountable for much (i.e. the 9/11 hijackers are stupid)because a society only has a practical consensus for what occurs within it (not a direct consensus).
“I believe individuals must be held to “account” for their actions.”
Thus… society holding one to account.
“I also believe that people ought to be held responsible for them.”
If you don’t hold yourself ‘responsible for the condition of the world, how can anyone else hold you responsible’?
“I believe society as a whole cannot be accountable for much (i.e. the 9/11 hijackers are criminal)”
I believe society as a whole IS accountable for all!
Society and consensus? give me a break!
“I believe society as a whole IS accountable for all!”
Can you elaborate on this? I’d like to know why if you choose to do something society as a whole disagrees with, I can be accountable for it.
And does society as a whole include babies, the mentally ill, and all other non-rational actors?
Laurence –
I think Lobonoik is right that individuals carry responsibility while society is the one who applies accountability should the individual not live up to those responsibilities.
That is the whole purpose of our legal system. Irresponsible people are forced, through the court system or misdemeanor fines, to do what society considers the responsible action or else, if direct reparation is impossible, the guilty party must serve time in jail.
With that said, I do not think society and government are synonomous. A lot of things society ought to do should not be forced by government. For example, it is charitable and righteous to assist the poor. But I have a big problem with government, using its threat of imprisonment if I don’t pay taxes, forcing me to be charitable. Yes, the end result is the same, the poor are provided for, but the means are extremely different. If society is synonomous with government and it is responsible for all then do we not have a legislative duty to care for the sick, ensure that no one’s grass is left unmowed for two weeks, or that everyone gets a new roof whenever their house needs one?
Society, meaning the relationship of neighbor to neighbor, is responsible for helping those who need help. Using government police power to force such help offends every notion of liberty as such reasoning clearly lends credence to government healthcare, government controlled retirement programs, government controlled prices, etc. etc.
Good blog