Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 8:01:19 -0500
From: Roderick T. Beaman <crazylibertarian@bellsouth.net>
Subject: My Questions for ACLU
The following is a list of questions that I have posed to an ACLU director. I have tried to obscure his identity as much as possible. Please note that I have specifically raised the point of ACLU's position on The Second Amendment.
Given the track record of Xxxxxx in answering my challenges (he hasn't), I thought that I would start making up a list of questions and periodically add to them. So, I'll just start out with this basic list of three and add to them. Mr. Xxxxxx and ACLU are welcome to respond at any time between now and the first time that any member of ACLU actually reads The First Amendment (in other words, through about 2040). I will try to word each question so that the ACLU can't weasel its way out answering them. I must admit this will be a challenge since ACLU has shown such enormous capacity in avoiding confronting its own disingenuousness to make even its beloved Chief Mealymouth Bill Clinton proud.
Who knows, I might even add a scorecard for the members.
So here goes. Drum roll, please and churn up the 'Jeopardy' theme.
1. How does ACLU square its interpretation of The First Amendment to drive God out of all public places from the wording of the amendment with its interpretation of the Second that specifically cites a private right to ownership of arms? (This should be good to watch.)
2. Name a single case that ACLU has brought over the Tenth Amendment and states' rights.
3. Name a single case that ACLU has brought affirming property rights over an issue such as zoning or land use.
4. Will ACLU join me in my lawsuit to have Lady Justice removed from the courts of this land? (Unless one of the readers has been living in Oz, (come to think of it, isn't that where ACLU's members reside, anyway?) he knows that Lady Justice is derived from the polytheistic pagan religion of ancient Rome, and I am so offended by it, that I can't bear to even walk by a court house again.) I mean, Mr. Xxxxxx, here's your golden chance to prove that ACLU is not the pack of anti-Christian, hypocritical, commie swine that I've maintained you are. All you've got to do is endorse my law suit and help me prosecute it. And when you do, I will admit to this list, that I am wrong in the anti-Christian part of that assertion. Further, I will permit you to use my statement on any publication that you care to. I can't raise the ante much more than that. I'll likely still despise the organization but you will have that statement from one person who is on record as having been an intractable opponent.
On the other hand, if ACLU doesn't join me, then you will have tacitly confirmed the worst that could be said about your organization. How about it, Mr. Xxxxxx? That's my bet. Do you call or fold?
5. How does ACLU explain it's action to stop school busses for Catholic and religious school children. It's one thing, Mr. Xxxxxx to try to make war, as you have on religion but must you do it, potentially, over the bodies of children? As I've pointed out in the past, but in this case, the busses were there to protect the children's safety. Ah, but yes. What matters a cabinet of human protoplasm when such important things as your non-existent principle of separation of church and state is at risk. What matters their little lives?
And for whatever it's worth, Mr. Xxxxxx, it is because of this one issue that I maintain your organization is beneath contempt and even though I will issue the statement as I have indicated above, if you call my bet, I will forever despise ACLU.
6. Unquestionably, the IRS is the single most feared and abusive agency of the federal government. Yet, ACLU remains silent about its excesses. I can''t think of a single case, (and perhaps here, Mr. Xxxxxx can offer one), where the IRS has raised questions about the agency's tactics or even went to court with a taxpayer to defend him.
The presumptions of IRS legal processes are an abomination and should be challenged, yet the ACLU is silent. There are a number of profound constitutional problems with the very theory of income tax prosecutions, not the least of which are Fifth Amendment concerns that ACLU in every other instance would be issuing a screed about it from the belfries. As I have come to understand it, the taxpayer, by signing the income tax return, acknowledges that he is subject to the tax and that he, actually, winds up being prosecuted for perjury. The taxpayer, at no time understands this, yet has, effectively, surrendered his rights. I reason that ACLU remains on the sidelines about this BECAUSE, the income tax is the single greatest source of funding for the economic totalitarian state that it wants to install.
(I add, here, that I sometimes, rarely, find myself softening my views about ACLU and then I think about these inconsistencies and my blood begins boiling, all over again. And I arrive at the conclusion that ACLU is one of the most dangerous organizations in this country, far more so than the Communist Party.)
I also find the treatment given to ACLU by the media as excessively deferential, but not surprising. Thus, stories about the John Birch Society are presented with laughs up sleeves. John Denver and others make songs ridiculing the JBS and when Rennings, Jokaw and Blather serve up stories about ACLU, it's always with a sober, reverential tone.
I do have to give ACLU some credit, though. It has pulled off one of the best cons in American history. The Keepers of Our Conscience behave as if an understanding of the constitution is the exclusive fiefdom of ACLU and nine demi-gods in robes in Washington. Well, I hate to disillusion them, but this is one democrat (notice the small ''d'') who feels confident of his ability to read the document and say that he demurs.
Like John Lennon's Sexy Sadie, ACLU is one of the greatest of them all. But like he warned the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, ACLU, you'll get yours yet. And if the revolution comes that you've been working for, you guys will be the ones who get lined up against the wall and shot, a long time before they come for me.
7. Please provide ONE SINGLE CASE where your organization has brought suit over free trade. If you can't provide one then please explain the lack of action against the backdrop of the lawsuit that you brought to overturn the establishment of a residency requirement for welfare benefits.
8. Why does ACLU's web site have separate links for issues such as Disability Rights, HIV/AIDS, Lesbian & Gay Rights, Prisons, Police Practices and Women's Rights (Read: Abortion Rights) among others, yet you have NOT ONE LINK about taxpayer rights? Oh that's right. You don't think they are worthy of rights anyway. After all, they only hump off to work every day to support the parasites.
9. Why are so many of the issues above legislatively conferred rather than among our natural rights as outlined by Thomas Jefferson in The Declaration of Independence?
10. Why do so many of these issues involve entitlements to the funds of the public treasury?
11. Please provide one example where ACLU has explored the contradictions between Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 4 (the prohibition of direct taxes) and the income tax to?
12. Why does ACLU's web site have separate links for issues such as Disability Rights, HIV/AIDS, Lesbian & Gay Rights, Prisons, Police Practices and Women's Rights (Read: Abortion Rights) among others, yet you have NOT ONE LINK about property rights, a right that most Americans cherish more than the legislated and other discovered rights of interest to ACLU?
13. Has ACLU ever brought a case against the United States government for abdicating its responsibility for the coining and the regulation of the value of money as provided in Article I, Section 8? If not, why not?
14. Has ACLU ever brought a case against the United States government over the obvious contradiction between the Sixteenth Amendment and Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 4? If not, why not?
15. Is The Declaration of Independence the philosophy of this country or is it not?
16. Where was ACLU during the Kelo vs. New London Case?
From: Roderick T. Beaman <crazylibertarian@bellsouth.net>
Subject: My Questions for ACLU
The following is a list of questions that I have posed to an ACLU director. I have tried to obscure his identity as much as possible. Please note that I have specifically raised the point of ACLU's position on The Second Amendment.
Given the track record of Xxxxxx in answering my challenges (he hasn't), I thought that I would start making up a list of questions and periodically add to them. So, I'll just start out with this basic list of three and add to them. Mr. Xxxxxx and ACLU are welcome to respond at any time between now and the first time that any member of ACLU actually reads The First Amendment (in other words, through about 2040). I will try to word each question so that the ACLU can't weasel its way out answering them. I must admit this will be a challenge since ACLU has shown such enormous capacity in avoiding confronting its own disingenuousness to make even its beloved Chief Mealymouth Bill Clinton proud.
Who knows, I might even add a scorecard for the members.
So here goes. Drum roll, please and churn up the 'Jeopardy' theme.
1. How does ACLU square its interpretation of The First Amendment to drive God out of all public places from the wording of the amendment with its interpretation of the Second that specifically cites a private right to ownership of arms? (This should be good to watch.)
2. Name a single case that ACLU has brought over the Tenth Amendment and states' rights.
3. Name a single case that ACLU has brought affirming property rights over an issue such as zoning or land use.
4. Will ACLU join me in my lawsuit to have Lady Justice removed from the courts of this land? (Unless one of the readers has been living in Oz, (come to think of it, isn't that where ACLU's members reside, anyway?) he knows that Lady Justice is derived from the polytheistic pagan religion of ancient Rome, and I am so offended by it, that I can't bear to even walk by a court house again.) I mean, Mr. Xxxxxx, here's your golden chance to prove that ACLU is not the pack of anti-Christian, hypocritical, commie swine that I've maintained you are. All you've got to do is endorse my law suit and help me prosecute it. And when you do, I will admit to this list, that I am wrong in the anti-Christian part of that assertion. Further, I will permit you to use my statement on any publication that you care to. I can't raise the ante much more than that. I'll likely still despise the organization but you will have that statement from one person who is on record as having been an intractable opponent.
On the other hand, if ACLU doesn't join me, then you will have tacitly confirmed the worst that could be said about your organization. How about it, Mr. Xxxxxx? That's my bet. Do you call or fold?
5. How does ACLU explain it's action to stop school busses for Catholic and religious school children. It's one thing, Mr. Xxxxxx to try to make war, as you have on religion but must you do it, potentially, over the bodies of children? As I've pointed out in the past, but in this case, the busses were there to protect the children's safety. Ah, but yes. What matters a cabinet of human protoplasm when such important things as your non-existent principle of separation of church and state is at risk. What matters their little lives?
And for whatever it's worth, Mr. Xxxxxx, it is because of this one issue that I maintain your organization is beneath contempt and even though I will issue the statement as I have indicated above, if you call my bet, I will forever despise ACLU.
6. Unquestionably, the IRS is the single most feared and abusive agency of the federal government. Yet, ACLU remains silent about its excesses. I can''t think of a single case, (and perhaps here, Mr. Xxxxxx can offer one), where the IRS has raised questions about the agency's tactics or even went to court with a taxpayer to defend him.
The presumptions of IRS legal processes are an abomination and should be challenged, yet the ACLU is silent. There are a number of profound constitutional problems with the very theory of income tax prosecutions, not the least of which are Fifth Amendment concerns that ACLU in every other instance would be issuing a screed about it from the belfries. As I have come to understand it, the taxpayer, by signing the income tax return, acknowledges that he is subject to the tax and that he, actually, winds up being prosecuted for perjury. The taxpayer, at no time understands this, yet has, effectively, surrendered his rights. I reason that ACLU remains on the sidelines about this BECAUSE, the income tax is the single greatest source of funding for the economic totalitarian state that it wants to install.
(I add, here, that I sometimes, rarely, find myself softening my views about ACLU and then I think about these inconsistencies and my blood begins boiling, all over again. And I arrive at the conclusion that ACLU is one of the most dangerous organizations in this country, far more so than the Communist Party.)
I also find the treatment given to ACLU by the media as excessively deferential, but not surprising. Thus, stories about the John Birch Society are presented with laughs up sleeves. John Denver and others make songs ridiculing the JBS and when Rennings, Jokaw and Blather serve up stories about ACLU, it's always with a sober, reverential tone.
I do have to give ACLU some credit, though. It has pulled off one of the best cons in American history. The Keepers of Our Conscience behave as if an understanding of the constitution is the exclusive fiefdom of ACLU and nine demi-gods in robes in Washington. Well, I hate to disillusion them, but this is one democrat (notice the small ''d'') who feels confident of his ability to read the document and say that he demurs.
Like John Lennon's Sexy Sadie, ACLU is one of the greatest of them all. But like he warned the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, ACLU, you'll get yours yet. And if the revolution comes that you've been working for, you guys will be the ones who get lined up against the wall and shot, a long time before they come for me.
7. Please provide ONE SINGLE CASE where your organization has brought suit over free trade. If you can't provide one then please explain the lack of action against the backdrop of the lawsuit that you brought to overturn the establishment of a residency requirement for welfare benefits.
8. Why does ACLU's web site have separate links for issues such as Disability Rights, HIV/AIDS, Lesbian & Gay Rights, Prisons, Police Practices and Women's Rights (Read: Abortion Rights) among others, yet you have NOT ONE LINK about taxpayer rights? Oh that's right. You don't think they are worthy of rights anyway. After all, they only hump off to work every day to support the parasites.
9. Why are so many of the issues above legislatively conferred rather than among our natural rights as outlined by Thomas Jefferson in The Declaration of Independence?
10. Why do so many of these issues involve entitlements to the funds of the public treasury?
11. Please provide one example where ACLU has explored the contradictions between Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 4 (the prohibition of direct taxes) and the income tax to?
12. Why does ACLU's web site have separate links for issues such as Disability Rights, HIV/AIDS, Lesbian & Gay Rights, Prisons, Police Practices and Women's Rights (Read: Abortion Rights) among others, yet you have NOT ONE LINK about property rights, a right that most Americans cherish more than the legislated and other discovered rights of interest to ACLU?
13. Has ACLU ever brought a case against the United States government for abdicating its responsibility for the coining and the regulation of the value of money as provided in Article I, Section 8? If not, why not?
14. Has ACLU ever brought a case against the United States government over the obvious contradiction between the Sixteenth Amendment and Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 4? If not, why not?
15. Is The Declaration of Independence the philosophy of this country or is it not?
16. Where was ACLU during the Kelo vs. New London Case?